I am, supposedly, a translator. Let me translate: "CDC is using science but is ready to shed certain evidential notions if someone less-informed throws a fit over their conclusion" There's an idea in the US that people's opinions and perceptions value as much as facts. If I were to hate gay people, I should receive as much respect for what I feel as someone who doesn't (I was about to say "as much as gay people themselves", but that would not be the case). It's okay to have tastes. It's okay to have preferences. Substituting reality with your preferences and claiming your preferred reality to be true is ignorant, and ignorance can lead to dire mistakes. (I'm not going to look up stories of kids being bullied to suicide for being gay, but you can find them easily) People have, for a while now, been disenchanted with the way they'd been treated by the government. That much is clear, and that much is fair. Lying about reality does not make it better for anyone. No, being gay is not a choice. No, stories about climate change being a hoax are not true (and yes, 95%+ of scientists do agree on that). You don't get to say that something is true simply because you believe it to be true."CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes"
I think it's more accurate to say that a Trump appointee who has neither interest nor understanding of the function of the CDC is doing the bidding of one or more special interests in order to secure a position post-Trump. That the CDC is positively gobsmacked by this charge demonstrates "continuity of government" or "the deep state" depending on how conspiratorially-minded you are. Epidemiology has little room for ideology.
Well, shit. You're right. I'm a fool for missing the point. I think my argument still stands, but I've accidentally hit something else while missing the intended target.