A New York Times writer compares CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky’s vaccine messaging in different settings. Analyzing a podcast with someone Walensky likely considers a colleague, David Leonhardt describes her tone and approach as more conversational. He also identifies examples of Walensky’s acknowledgment of a “risk-benefit” assessment—more nuanced communication than we hear from the CDC in its official guidance on news media programs.

Leonhardt gave another example of Walensky’s more flexible stance on vaccines:

Walensky began her answer by restating official C.D.C. policy: “We’re not currently recommending it.” But then she added the fuller truth: “I’ll tell you what we do know, and some places where I think people might veer from standard guidance.”

He summarizes what could be more helpful in health communications:

“Health officials are frequently unwilling to take that second step in public. When confronted with uncertainty, they do not acknowledge it. They ignore gray areas and talk in black and white.”

This situation exemplifies humility as a character dimension. Leaders who admit uncertainty—that they don’t know everything and are still learning—may be more persuasive, not less.

Leonhardt is also describing integrity and, more specifically, transparency. Consistency in messaging, including giving a fuller picture, could help people make rational choices for themselves. That might not result in outcomes the CDC wants—or it might, but not in the exact timeframe or terms that the CDC dictates. As Leonhardt says, “the full truth” would give people more agency and could cause less backlash against prescriptive guidelines.