https://twitter.com/CDCDirector/status/1681042954213904384
As twitter user @wsbgnl notes, the guidance on the CDC's own website literally recommends to mask when traveling.
Why should I wear a mask when traveling if I don’t usually wear one in my community?
- Traveling can bring you in contact with people from many different places where viruses are spreading, including different COVID-19 variants and other viruses.
- Using public transportation and being in transportation hubs such as airports, can involve spending long periods of time in areas that may be crowded or poorly ventilated. This increases your chance of exposure to respiratory diseases.
- Wearing a mask during travel can also help protect others who cannot avoid being in crowded places when they are traveling. Some of these people might be more vulnerable, like babies under 6 months of age, persons over 65 years of age, or those with a weakened immune system.
I like how the implication from that last bullet point is that vulnerable people only exist in a vacuum at crowded places like airports. Wait until the CDC finds out that vulnerable people are everywhere!
And apparently the other two people are also high-ranking employees in the CDC. 
Anyways, none of this surprises me, of course, I'm just venting.
Also, new Death Panel podcast episode on the new CDC director: https://soundcloud.com/deathpanel/who-is-mandy-cohen-072723
Wastewater data: https://biobot.io/data/
Notice that it's been going up for the last month. Gee, I sure can't wait for the winter.
Anyone who was serious about dealing with COVID would get nowhere even remotely near this position.
Anyway I nominate myself to be COVID Stalin. I would be willing to put up to 9/10ths of the US population into the gulag (the other 10% would be guards).
Changing the head of the CDC is a way to make it seem like the Biden administration is making a significant change and thus giving the illusion that something is being done to appease the naysayers who has valid critiques of the way the CDC has handled the pandemic. But of course, it doesn't actually do anything to improve public health, especially when the problems are ideological/systemic. The change is just about optics more than anything, IMO.
Doesn't make sense to me. People taking COVID seriously are a vanishingly small portion of the population, so largely irrelevant when it comes to voting etc, and I'd say by and large if they didn't fall for the gaslighting for the past 2 years, they're not likely to be won over now. And it's not like immuno-compromised people are going to be able to live their lives any more than they already were with the old head.
Tbh it just sounds like the old head wanted to do something else.
Sorry, I don't think I articulated enough what I meant by "naysayers". At the height of the pandemic, it wasn't just COVID cautious people who lost trust in the CDC--it was kind of just the entire country more broadly. And much of that came under Walensky's watch. And you're right that she was apparently stepping down anyways, but Cohen also immediately took the opportunity in her first interview as director to talk about restoring trust in the institution. So I still think, even if it wasn't the plan, that won't stop the Biden admin from using this as an opportunity to make it seem like some substantive changes are happening, when in actuality, the change in leadership basically just amounts to shuffling papers around.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/new-cdc-director-combat-vaccine-misinformation-broken-trust-rcna95348
Ah, I see what you mean now. In that case, I think this is actually the libs sincerely trying to do the best they can, it's just that the best they can is pathetic. The article points out that they've at least realized they need to ramp up the propaganda to get people to trust the CDC again, but unfortunately everyone involved seems to be missing that the anti-vaxx fascists are much better funded and have a three decade head start. This kind of stuff might work if RFK Jr and DeSantis were shot in the head and thrown in a ditch, along with any of the funders of the anti-vax movement, but frankly even then we're talking about a timescale in the decades.