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

[probinson]

Which studies have you read about any mitigation measures?

Well, there is the infamous hairdresser study that has been cited many times as "proving" the efficacy of masks. This was a horribly underpowered study (139 clients and 2 hairdressers) and was observational in nature. It literally sits at the rock bottom of the evidence pyramid in terms of quality of evidence. Yet everyone jumped on that study as if it were the gospel truth. Here it is, so you can read it for yourself if you've not yet had the privilege;

Absence of Apparent Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from Two Stylists...

 

[hedrick]

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?

More data specific to delta has been available in the last few days. Here’s more information New science leads to another CDC update on masks. Even for the vaccinated.Also https://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-fully-vaccinated-people-can-spread-delta-variant-2021-7#:~:text=The%20Delta%20variant%20makes%20it%20easier%20for%20vaccinated,Control%20and%20Prevention%20to%20update%20its%20mask%20guidelines.

 

[Aldebaran]

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.

They may also observe how so many more vaccinated people are getting the increasingly common "breakthrough" infections and figure that there really is no real protection from getting vaxxed. In Illinois, which has been run by democrats for a very long time has 644 people hospitalized, and 169 people dead--all of which were vaccinated. That's just one state: 169 Dead, 644 Hospitalized in Illinois Breakthrough COVID Cases

 

[Fr. Appletree]

The CDC is a joke and I'm not going to do anything they say.

 

[RDKirk]

My methodology has not changed since February of last year: Avoid breathing other people's exhalations to the greatest extent practicable.

 

[Aldebaran]

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.

Viruses multiply once inside your body. How much of it you initially breathe in doesn't relate to that.

 

[hedrick]

They may also observe how so many more vaccinated people are getting the increasingly common "breakthrough" infections and figure that there really is no real protection from getting vaxxed. In Illinois, which has been run by democrats for a very long time has 644 people hospitalized, and 169 people dead--all of which were vaccinated. That's just one state: 169 Dead, 644 Hospitalized in Illinois Breakthrough COVID Cases

That’s for the whole period since vaccination started. What are the total numbers for that period?

hmm. “That figure equates to 2.44% of COVID-19 deaths in the state since Jan. 1, officials said.” That’s an underestimate, since not everyone became vaccinated right at Jan 1. Maybe double it?

 

[loveofourlord]

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

Ummm your the one that brought up a bunch of pointless stuff not related to why someone should fear CHINA town, but keep it up. Dig yourself more of a hole.

 

[sfs]

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.

Are you not aware that preprints have often been the only scientific studies we've had to go on in figuring out how to respond to the pandemic? They're not as good as peer-reviewed studies but they're a heck of a lot faster, and waiting to decide public policy on them is not a viable option. So the choice is rely on preprints or rely on no information at all.

In any case, do you agree that your previous suggestion was wrong? You understand that Fauci was working from pre-delta data?

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?

I think they're fine to cite -- I've cited them in published work, and I've had my preprints cited by others. Just be aware when you do that some fraction of preprints (a large fraction of covid preprints, unfortunately) are complete rubbish.

 

[probinson]

Data specific to delta has only been available in the last few days. Here’s more information New science leads to another CDC update on masks. Even for the vaccinated.Also https://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-fully-vaccinated-people-can-spread-delta-variant-2021-7#:~:text=The%20Delta%20variant%20makes%20it%20easier%20for%20vaccinated,Control%20and%20Prevention%20to%20update%20its%20mask%20guidelines.

This is what Dr. Walensky said;

"The Delta variant is showing every day its willingness to outsmart us and to be an opportunist in areas where we have not shown a fortified response against it," she said of the Covid strain that now represents most US cases. "In recent days, I have seen new scientific data from recent outbreak investigations showing that the Delta variant behaves differently from past strains of the virus that cause Covid-19. Information on the Delta variant from several states and other countries indicates that in rare occasions, some vaccinated people infected with the Delta variant after vaccinations may be contagious and spread the virus to others. This new science is worrisome and, unfortunately, warrants an update to our recommendations."​

You'll forgive me if I don't take Dr. Walensky's word for it. Do you have a link to the actual scientific data she references? Because it's not in either link you provided.

She uses vague phrases like, "in rare occasions" vaccinated people can spread the virus to others. How rare? Is this like when she spoke of being "deeply concerned" about adolescent hospitalizations while data showed adolescent hospitalizations precipitously declining?

 

[RDKirk]

Viruses multiply once inside your body. How much of it you initially breathe in doesn't relate to that.

You need to explore the significance of "viral dose."

Viral dose is how much virus someone is exposed to when they are infected. Viral load is the amount of virus produced in someone's body after they are infected. Persons who suffered a high initial viral dose experience much more severe symptoms.

 

[sfs]

Well, there is the infamous hairdresser study that has been cited many times as "proving" the efficacy of masks. This was a horribly underpowered study (139 clients and 2 hairdressers) and was observational in nature. It literally sits at the rock bottom of the evidence pyramid in terms of quality of evidence. Yet everyone jumped on that study as if it were the gospel truth. Here it is, so you can read it for yourself if you've not yet had the privilege

I've read it (or maybe about it, I forget). I agree completely -- it had almost no evidential value. Most people infected with SARS-CoV-2 infect no one else (or at least that was the case pre-delta), so observing that a couple of infected people didn't infect anyone else tells you very little. I've also read lots of other studies about masks, however, and the balance of the evidence is that they clearly do work at reducing transmission. They certainly don't eliminate it, but they do reduce it.

 

[keith99]

They may also observe how so many more vaccinated people are getting the increasingly common "breakthrough" infections and figure that there really is no real protection from getting vaxxed. In Illinois, which has been run by democrats for a very long time has 644 people hospitalized, and 169 people dead--all of which were vaccinated. That's just one state: 169 Dead, 644 Hospitalized in Illinois Breakthrough COVID Cases

From the article you linked to:

That figure equates to 2.44% of COVID-19 deaths in the state since Jan. 1, officials said.

With 48% fully vaccinated I'd say the vaccinated are faring far better than the unvaccinated.

 

[Aldebaran]

Ummm your the one that brought up a bunch of pointless stuff not related to why someone should fear CHINA town, but keep it up. Dig yourself more of a hole.

That's because the whole "why someone should fear CHINA town" narrative is one you just made up. My post showed the progression of Covid in the months leading up to Pelosi's little stunt, and why it was foolish grandstanding (and hypocrisy) on her part.

 

[sfs]

You'll forgive me if I don't take Dr. Walensky's word for it. Do you have a link to the actual scientific data she references? Because it's not in either link you provided.

I doubt it's been published in any form yet. Much of this kind of information is first passed among public health labs and academic researchers before it appears in public in any form. Things are changing very fast and everyone involved in public health is doing their best to keep up.

As of a few days ago, at least, there were pretty solid anecdotal reports of vaccinated people transmitting the delta variant, but not enough data for anyone to know how often it is happening.

 

[probinson]

Are you not aware that preprints have often been the only scientific studies we've had to go on in figuring out how to respond to the pandemic? They're not as good as peer-reviewed studies but they're a heck of a lot faster, and waiting to decide public policy on them is not a viable option. So the choice is rely on preprints or rely on no information at all.

I'm glad to hear you say that. Just yesterday on this forum someone attempted to downplay something I posted about natural immunity being durable because it was in a preprint study.

In any case, do you agree that your previous suggestion was wrong? You understand that Fauci was working from pre-delta data?

I do not. It's extremely unlikely that what Dr. Fauci said 11 days ago was based on studies from January. I guess we'll never know, since they rarely actually cite their studies, but it's almost August. They've cited plenty of data on delta over the past weeks and months, and in January, we were just starting to worry about the UK variant.

The CDC updated their guidance for one reason and one reason only; increasing case counts in the US. My theory is that they know full well that case counts will almost certainly drop in a few weeks, and they want to institute this guidance so they can claim that was the reason. A "study" will follow shortly after that to "prove" that masks brought the case counts down. Count on it.

I think they're fine to cite -- I've cited them in published work, and I've had my preprints cited by others. Just be aware when you do that some fraction of preprints (a large fraction of covid preprints, unfortunately) are complete rubbish.

And therein lies the problem. I agree many of the preprints from COVID19 are rubbish, but I suspect that you and I would likely disagree on which ones are rubbish and which ones are valid.

 

[probinson]

As of a few days ago, at least, there were pretty solid anecdotal reports of vaccinated people transmitting the delta variant, but not enough data for anyone to know how often it is happening.

With the virus endemic as it is now, how on earth could there be any convincing anecdotal evidence (or any evidence) that would indicate where someone contracted the virus? We're long past the benefits of contact tracing, and any attempt at this point is futile.

 

[sfs]

I do not. It's extremely unlikely that what Dr. Fauci said 11 days ago was based on studies from January. I guess we'll never know, since they rarely actually cite their studies,

Sorry, but that's quite wrong. You can read the citations for the studies they were using here: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). I think it's references 40-44 and 46. Look up the studies yourself and see when the data was collected.

They've cited plenty of data on delta over the past weeks and months

What data that's relevant to your complains here?

The CDC updated their guidance for one reason and one reason only; increasing case counts in the US. My theory is that they know full well that case counts will almost certainly drop in a few weeks, and they want to institute this guidance so they can claim that was the reason. A "study" will follow shortly after that to "prove" that masks brought the case counts down.

My theory is that you are slandering people you know nothing about. Why you're doing this I don't know, but it's not a good use of your time.

And therein lies the problem. I agree many of the preprints from COVID19 are rubbish, but I suspect that you and I would likely disagree on which ones are rubbish and which ones are valid.

And I am absolutely certain that I am in a better position to judge which are rubbish and which aren't.

 

[sfs]

With the virus endemic as it is now, how on earth could there be any convincing anecdotal evidence (or any evidence) that would indicate where someone contracted the virus?

Household contacts combined with viral sequencing would to the job just fine. How much work have you done in genomic epidemiology?

 

[hedrick]

The CDC updated their guidance for one reason and one reason only; increasing case counts in the US. My theory is that they know full well that case counts will almost certainly drop in a few weeks, and they want to institute this guidance so they can claim that was the reason..

I hope you’re right. That’s not what the models are showing. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) The IHME forecast is particularly sobering, though I’m not sure how much weight to put on it. They show cases growing over the fall to where they were in the Spring.