CDC reverses controversial coronavirus testing guidelines amid expert backlash
New guidance says says that people without symptoms who have been in close contact with an infected person ‘need a test’
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has reversed its coronavirus testing guidance after it sparked backlash among prominent health experts.
Last month, the CDC altered its testing guidelines to state that people didn’t need to get tested if they came in contact with someone with Covid-19 if they were not displaying symptoms.
The move quickly sparked backlash among health experts because they thought it would discourage people from getting tested. About 40 percent of coronavirus patients are asymptomatic, according to the CDC.
Now the new guidance says that people without symptoms who have been in close contact with an infected person “need a test.”
“Please consult with your healthcare provider or public health official. Testing is recommended for all close contacts of persons with SARS-CoV-2 infection,” the new guidance says. “Because of the potential for asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission, it is important that contacts of individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection be quickly identified and tested.”
In a statement, the agency called the changes a “clarification” that was needed “due to the significance of asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission", according to the Associated Press.
Public health experts came out against the guidance last month due to the number of asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic carriers that can spread Covid-19 unknowingly through their communities.
Officials with the World Health Organisation (WHO) have encouraged countries to test people even if they don’t have symptoms to help find asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic carriers.
The reversal from the CDC on Friday comes one day after The New York Times reported that the testing guidance was placed on the agency’s website last month despite objections from agency scientists.
Officials told the publication that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) did the rewriting of the guidance and then “dropped” it onto the CDC’s website, ignoring the agency’s strict scientific review process.
“That was a doc that came from the top down, from the HHSand the task force,” a federal official, who wished to remain anonymous, told the publication. “That policy does not reflect what many people at the CDC feel should be the policy.”
CDC Director Robert Redfield defended the altered guidance when it first happened in August. He then repeated his defence of the changes during a Senate hearing on Wednesday, saying the controversy was a “misinterpretation” of the guidance.
But the testing guidance has since been reversed back to its previous recommendation for anyone to receive a test if in contact with someone with coronavirus.
The Independent has contacted the CDC and HHS for a comment.
Subscribe to Independent Premium to bookmark this article
Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Premium subscription today.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments