There seems to be a really obvious explanation of why they rolled their own test instead of using the WHO's test: there was no WHO test when they did it, the two different tests were developed in parallel (and they're not the only country which developed their own test either, there are something like seven different ones used in various countries). The CDC had already been using its own test internally when the WHO announced the alternative German one they'd been using. Then when the CDC test didn't work when rolled out to labs, it's not like the WHO could have supplied them with testing kits instead. The CDC would have had to produced the WHO-designed test itself, verified it worked, arrange for it to be mass produced, and hope that the same problem didn't happen - all whilst their test rollout was massively delayed by essentially starting from scratch. Most of the media just doesn't seem to be interested in explaining this.

I didn't see any such explanation on the CDC page either, and I thought I was pretty thorough in searching for it. I did know that they were developed concurrently, but I'm unaware of any information about why they couldn't at any point pivot and use the WHO test, for example. Why is this information so hard to find?

There was this medical person on the white house press meeting yesterday and she said that the WHO test had terrible false positive rate (she said 45% but that doesn't sound right)

The problem is not the CDC developing their own test.

The problem is their banning the use of other tests for months!

Only by Dr Helen Chu finally ignoring that ban was the Seattle outbreak discovered.

They should have been developing more than one test anyway. This reduces the risk of failure, and if you get multiple working tests, it allows some cross-checking to reduce false results. Failure to diversify is also mismanagement (though clearly more money can help you try more things).

I don't agree at all. The WHO had a working test. We just needed to produce as many of them as we possibly could, and send them to labs to set up and validate.

They needed every resource they had going to the confirmed working test. Even if the CDC was better funded, they still would have needed to spend every resource on that.

> There's still no explanation (afaik) for why they rolled their own test instead of using the WHO's test

The explanation is obvious, isn't it? "We thought our test would work, and it would be better."

It was stupid, to be sure. It would have been a stupid risk even if it had paid off—although in that case, few would be chastising them, and many would be thankful.

Agree, and that's kind of my point. Being "fully funded" wasn't the problem--it was hubris/mismanagement.

So, I think this is the most frustrating part of living in this political era. I did start this off with "funding", but it wasn't just funding, it was cutting qualified staff. It's that even the best qualified staff aren't moving fast enough or adapting and looking at cases beyond our own borders. Even in a reduced regulation environment, the FDA is likely hampering response time.

The US has regressed to an early 19th century model of government (loosely federated) at a time we're more tightly coupled than we ever have been due to moderinity.