CDC updates guidance, recommends vaccinated people wear masks indoors in certain areas

[Halbhh]

Wearing a mask won't protect you. Dr. Fauci said so. Wearing a mask "because a huge number of people are refusing to get vaccinated" is a response generated from fear, not science.

Reducing the amount of virus you are exposed to helps make a case milder.

Because it allows your immune system more time to ramp up before the virus gets high.

A mask reduces the amount of virus you breathe in, to a smaller amount.

So that when you then get Covid with a mask on it's less severe than it would have been without a mask. ->Maybe you stay out of the hospital.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Remember, though, that my first point was that "Influenza is still out there."

By masking, social distancing, and hand hygiene, the world sailed through the influenza season practically unscathed. That's not a lesson to ignore.

Understood...and if people want to continue with the voluntary masking and rigorous hand hygiene (the later should've been the norm anyway...who doesn't wash their hands?), that's fine.

However, mandated social distancing isn't sustainable.

It was prudent for Covid when there wasn't a vaccine...but given how long typical flu and cold seasons last, we can't be asking restaurants and other businesses to be operating at limited capacity for 1/3 of the year in the name of cold/flu prevention.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Mostly, yes, and also their secondary victims they would give the virus to also, in homes.

We will have to sacrifice for all their sakes. If everyone wears a mask that will help the unvaccinated to wear a mask.

Some will realize the anti vaccine stuff was false, and turn and get vaccinations in the next few months. Others that were just very cautious now can see the odds put waiting as clearly risky.

If you look at the vaccination trends...we have a long way to go before everyone "sees the light" so to speak.

I'll use my home state of Ohio as an example.

You can see the vaccination rollout process. Started low (when doses were limited), and then a massive ramp up in March and April when they expanded eligibility (to the tune of 90k-100k people per day getting it). A sharp taper down after that, another slight bump after the lottery was announced, and then after that, plummeted again.

We're averaging only 5,000 new shots per day, with 5 million people still left to be vaccinated.

Assuming that some miracle happened and we could get everyone else to see the light. At the snails pace we're going, that's close to another 3 years before we'd reach herd immunity via vaccination.

 

[RDKirk]

Understood...and if people want to continue with the voluntary masking and rigorous hand hygiene (the later should've been the norm anyway...who doesn't wash their hands?), that's fine.

However, mandated social distancing isn't sustainable.

It was prudent for Covid when there wasn't a vaccine...but given how long typical flu and cold seasons last, we can't be asking restaurants and other businesses to be operating at limited capacity for 1/3 of the year in the name of cold/flu prevention.

I social distance as much as possible. In locations where I can't I mask. I choose restaurants accordingly.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I think what is basically happening, though the media is slow to admit it, is that this virus is punching through our vaccines. More intensely and quickly than experts had predicted. Hence the recommendation.

It's certainly punching through in terms of preventing transmission to some degree, but it's still providing a pretty robust level of protection against severe disease. Estimates are that 99%+ of hospitalizations and deaths from covid are occurring in the unvaccinated.

And it should be noted, the goal of providing vaccines wasn't "so nobody will ever catch covid again", it was largely to prevent severe outcomes from it. The fact that it had such a high efficacy rate against symptomatic disease as a whole was a pleasant surprise (if you recall, the early statements made was that they would be pleased if that number was over 60%...it was a nice perk that it was originally 95% against the original strain)

It's not an all or nothing thing, even if vaccination means "you can still catch it, but it'll resemble a mild cold instead of something that will put you on a ventilator", that's a win. If the vaccine means that covid wont make me feel any worse than allergies, that's a good thing.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Yeah, I’m pretty upset about this. I will be going back to wearing a mask because a huge number of people are refusing to get vaccinated. I think it’s the right thing to do but only about half of the country seems to be concerned with the general welfare of our society. And every day I see people saying absolutely ignorant things about the vaccines or COVID. There is SO MUCH EVIDENCE that the vaccine is working! There is also ample evidence tracing outbreaks to super-spreader events where people were unmasked.

Based on a lot of what was said before surrounding masks, their main objective was to stop the wearer from spreading to someone else:

Per NPR:
CDC cited evidence that the coronavirus could be transmitted by asymptomatic people who might not be aware of their infectiousness – a group estimated to account for more than 50% of transmissions. The agency said masks were intended to block virus-laden particles that might be emitted by an infected person.

In a report updated Tuesday, the CDC says that is still the primary intention of wearing masks. But it also cites growing evidence that even cloth masks can also reduce the amount of infectious droplets inhaled by the wearer.


So, when you boil it down, I as a vaccinated person, wearing a mask, primarily is for the benefit of protecting others. If an infected anti-vaxxer coughs near me, chances are I won't get infected, and even if I did, it'd be mild.

If I as a vaccinated person, am an asymptomatic carrier, and exhale near another person who did the right thing and got vaccinated, chanced are, they won't get infected. The only people who would be at risk from me being an asymptomatic carrier (which as a vaccinated person, is already statistically unlikely) would be people who've willfully refused the vaccine...

No matter which way you slice it, making every vaccinated person alter their behavior is for the benefit (and it's only a tiny benefit, given that most of us who are vaccinated aren't going to catch this thing anyway) of anti-vaxxers who literally mock us for doing the right thing.

 

[Halbhh]

If you look at the vaccination trends...we have a long way to go before everyone "sees the light" so to speak.

I'll use my home state of Ohio as an example.

View attachment 303295

You can see the vaccination rollout process. Started low (when doses were limited), and then a massive ramp up in March and April when they expanded eligibility (to the tune of 90k-100k people per day getting it). A sharp taper down after that, another slight bump after the lottery was announced, and then after that, plummeted again.

We're averaging only 5,000 new shots per day, with 5 million people still left to be vaccinated.

Assuming that some miracle happened and we could get everyone else to see the light. At the snails pace we're going, that's close to another 3 years before we'd reach herd immunity via vaccination.

I noticed news reports that in hotspots like Arkansas an increase in vaccination happened recently as it became clear the local risk was increasing. I just searched up a report to link: Vaccination rates tick upward in states with surging Covid cases

Arkansas seems to be there at that moment 3x higher rate of first time vac than nat. average.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I social distance as much as possible. In locations where I can't I mask. I choose restaurants accordingly.

Which is fine...

This time of year, it's nice enough to eat outside at a brewery or winery anyway.

But my issue is with the force aspect.

It's one thing for the government to make a forceful declaration absent of any method of people being able to prevent severe outcomes.

When we didn't have the vaccine, it made sense.

However, when the solution to the problem is widely available, and the people who are leaving themselves vulnerable are making that choice (and quite proudly I might add...people are flaunting their anti-vaxx status as a badge of honor it seems like), then forcing a business to operate at 50% capacity, and making them adopt a policy that's going to potentially drive some people away isn't reasonable.

The example I used before...

It doesn't make sense to make the rest of us adhere to a 5 mph speed limit to protect the guy who refuses to wear a seatbelt because he thinks seatbelts are George Soros trying to control the globe.

 

[probinson]

I posted this in another thread, but it's relevant to this discussion also;

Let's follow the timeline up to yesterday's reinstatement of guidance for vaccinated people to wear masks;

April 1, 2021

“Vaccinated people do not carry the virus — they don’t get sick,” Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the CDC, told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on Tuesday. That’s “not just in the clinical trials, but it’s also in real-world data.”

Walensky was referring to a new CDC study that suggests those fully inoculated with the vaccines produced by Moderna and Pfizer don’t transmit the virus.

CDC Data Suggests Vaccinated Don’t Carry, Can’t Spread Virus

It’s official: Vaccinated people don’t transmit COVID-19​

May 13, 2021

Calling it an "exciting and powerful moment," Walensky said the science supports the updated CDC guidance that "anyone who is fully vaccinated can participate in indoor and outdoor activities -- large or small -- without wearing a mask or physical distancing."

People vaccinated against Covid-19 can go without masks indoors and outdoors, CDC says

June 29, 2021

Dr. Fauci on NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt; "If in fact, you are vaccinated, fully vaccinated, you are protected, and you do not need to wear a mask, outdoors or indoors.”

He also said, "We know from experience now that the vaccines that we’re using in this country do very well against the delta variant.”​

July 16, 2021 (11 days before masking guidance changing)

Fauci said vaccinated people who develop asymptomatic infections have "considerably less" virus in their nasal passages compared to unvaccinated people with asymptomatic infections.

"I think one can make a reasonable assumption, based on the level of virus in the nasopharynx, that it would be less likely that that vaccinated breakthrough person would transmit compared to an unvaccinated person," Fauci said in the briefing.

Fauci: Vaccinated people who contract COVID-19 are far less likely to spread the virus than unvaccinated people​

July 27, 2021 (masking guidance is updated)

The change in guidance was driven by the delta variant's higher transmissibility and new evidence from the CDC that in rare cases, fully vaccinated individuals who get infected with the variant can spread the virus just as easily as unvaccinated people.

"This new science is worrisome and unfortunately warrants an update to our recommendations," CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said Tuesday in a news briefing.

Experts back CDC change on masks as delta variant spreads

CDC reverses indoor mask policy, saying fully vaccinated people and kids should wear them indoors​

And here is what that looks like on a timeline superimposed over the US infection curve;

So to summarize; the CDC said that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, nor can they transmit it and importantly, they said this was true not only in clinical trials, but also in "real-world data". This is picked up by the media and shouted from the rooftops. Then, Dr. Fauci comes along and says that vaccinated people are far less likely to spread the virus, and that the vaccine does very well against delta. Then just 11 days later, the CDC completely changes course citing... delta? The same delta that we've had for months? The same delta that Fauci said the vaccine was very effective against? The same delta Fauci said that vaccinated people were far less likely to spread less than 2 weeks ago?

Alrighty then.

The CDC has simultaneously issued scientifically dubious "guidance" while undermining confidence in the vaccines, which is already low.

The "noble lies" of public health are fueling vaccine hesitancy and other conspiracy theories. If you want to blame someone for the distrust in the CDC and low vaccination rates, look no further than the CDC itself;

Noble lies—small untruths—yield unpredictable outcomes. Nietzsche once wrote, “Not that you lied to me, but that I no longer believe you, has shaken me.” Public health messaging is predicated on trust, which overcomes the enormous complexity of the scientific literature, creating an opportunity to communicate initiatives effectively. Still, violation of this trust renders the communication unreliable. When trust is shattered, messaging is no longer clear and straightforward, and instead results in the audience trying to reverse-engineer the statement based on their view of the speaker’s intent. Simply put, noble lies can rob confidence from the public, leading to confusion, a loss of credibility, conspiracy theories, and obfuscated policy.

Noble lies are a trap. We cannot predict the public’s behavior, and loss of trust is devastating. The general population is far too skeptical to blindly follow the advice of experts, and far too intelligent to be easily duped.

The Noble Lies of COVID-19​

 

[hedrick]

I posted this in another thread, but it's relevant to this discussion also;

Let's follow the timeline up to yesterday's reinstatement of guidance for vaccinated people to wear masks; ....

Evidence at the time showed that. Maybe they were wrong, but more likely, Delta behaves differently.

Advice changes. What we know changes. Whether the virus is under control or not changes. Variants change. Changes don't mean people were wrong or lying.

Personally I think some restrictions should have been removed last summer and put back in the fall.

I live in a state (NJ) where the governor only removed restrictions when he was fairly sure he wouldn't have to put them back. It will be interesting to see whether he has to do so anyway.

 

[probinson]

Evidence at the time showed that. Maybe they were wrong, but more likely, Delta behaves differently.

Advice changes. What we know changes. Whether the virus is under control or not changes. Variants change. Changes don't mean people were wrong or lying.

With respect, this is the answer to the OP. This belief the that the science and evidence changes overnight is silly. "What we know" has not changed substantially in 11 days. The eagerness and willingness to excuse non-evidence based interventions is how we got here.

Today, Dr. Vinay Prasad (one of the authors of the noble lie article above) tweeted these 2 things;

When experts in evidence based medicine are more likely to suggest stuffing panty liner in masks than running a cluster randomized trial of masking recommendations, I think its fair to say there is room for improvement in medical education.

The best part about recommending things with no credible data is you can recommend anything you wish!​

 

[ThisIsMe123]

With respect, this is the answer to the OP. This belief the that the science and evidence changes overnight is silly. "What we know" has not changed substantially in 11 days. The eagerness and willingness to excuse non-evidence based interventions is how we got here.

Today, Dr. Vinay Prasad (one of the authors of the noble lie article above) tweeted these 2 things;

When experts in evidence based medicine are more likely to suggest stuffing panty liner in masks than running a cluster randomized trial of masking recommendations, I think its fair to say there is room for improvement in medical education.

The best part about recommending things with no credible data is you can recommend anything you wish!​

Maybe they should have preceded every announcement, "For the moment....blah blah blah" or "At this time...blah blah blah"

Which would be more accurate as this is an EVOLVING situation.

 

[probinson]

Maybe they should have preceded every announcement, "For the moment....blah blah blah" or "At this time...blah blah blah"

Which would be more accurate as this is an EVOLVING situation.

How can you just ignore that 11 days ago, Dr. Fauci was talking about how little virus was in the nasopharynx of vaccinated people, and then yesterday they determine, whoops! Actually there is quite a lot of the delta virus in the nasopharynx of vaccinated people, as if the delta variant hasn't been prevalent for months? This is not "new" information.

Do you really think that there's that much more delta variant circulating today than there was just 11 days ago?

 

[ripple the car]

How can you just ignore that 11 days ago, Dr. Fauci was talking about how little virus was in the nasopharynx of vaccinated people, and then yesterday they determine, whoops! Actually there is quite a lot of the delta virus in the nasopharynx of vaccinated people, as if the delta variant hasn't been prevalent for months? This is not "new" information.

Do you really think that there's that much more delta variant circulating today than there was just 11 days ago?

This is why I don’t watch the news.

 

[sfs]

Do you really think that there's that much more delta variant circulating today than there was just 11 days ago?

I think there is a heck of a lot more delta variant circulating in the US than whenever the data was collected that Fauci was relying on.

ETA: and not just in the US. Here is one of the studies the CDC was relying on; it uses data from January and February of this year. How much delta was in England during those months? Here is another one; the data comes from Israel in late January. Again, no delta.

 

[probinson]

I think there is a heck of a lot more delta variant circulating in the US than whenever the data was collected that Fauci was relying on.

That's one possible explanation.

Another is that the CDC has been making non evidence-based recommendations all throughout the pandemic, and now that it affects vaccinated people who have "done the right thing", they're upset about it.

But for those of us that have been following the CDC and Fauci's flip-flops throughout the pandemic, this new guidance is nothing new. The "evidence" for most mitigation measures has been of extremely low quality. Why change now?

 

[sfs]

That's one possible explanation.

It's the correct one, as far as I can tell.

Another is that the CDC has been making non evidence-based recommendations all throughout the pandemic, and now that it affects vaccinated people who have "done the right thing", they're upset about it.

So have you read the studies the CDC cited in support of their statements about lower viral load in vaccinated people?

 

[sfs]

But for those of us that have been following the CDC and Fauci's flip-flops throughout the pandemic, this new guidance is nothing new. The "evidence" for most mitigation measures has been of extremely low quality. Why change now?

Which studies have you read about any mitigation measures?

 

[probinson]

Here is another one; the data comes from Israel in late January. Again, no delta.

Wait. That article is a preprint, and carries the disclaimer; This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.

I've been told on this very forum when I've posted preprint studies that preprints can't be relied upon since they've not been peer-reviewed. However to be fair, I think this is my first interaction with you on these forums, so I want to clarify your position... are preprints OK for citing evidence?

 

[Aldebaran]

what does that have to do with the price of tea in china?

Now that you're veering totally off-topic, I'll take it that I made my point very clear.