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

[probinson]

Where did the CDC make the prediction that the United Kingdom was going to hit 100,000 cases a day?

The CDC did not make that prediction.

It was an example of a failed prediction. It was made by Prof. Neil Ferguson. My apologies if those 2 points in my post ran together and I incorrectly gave the impression that the CDC made that prediction.

 

[Aldebaran]

There is no reason to bring up china town, but to imply racistly that Chinese are the source of the virus everywhere, and that we should fear them. It's a racist talking point, there was no reason to think someone in china town in America was going to make you sick with covid, just STOP WITH THE RACISM.

I mentioned Chinatown because that's the location Pelosi visited to do her grandstanding. If you want to blame someone for racism, blame Pelosi for using Asian people for her little stunt.

 

[ThisIsMe123]

Like weather forecasting, often mostly right, sometimes not.
You might like the detailed expertise in the video just above I posted a couple minutes ago.

Yeah, you'd be surprised how meteorologist get yelled at by people when they planned a day off and it wound up raining instead of being sunny.

The meteorologist say, "This is guidance, not Gospel" (no pun intended lol)

 

[sfs]

A couple of comments, since we're talking about a world I have some direct experience with.
First, I have been in a lot of meetings with people from the CDC, health departments, and academic research centers. These have involved a great deal of talk about data and studies concerning the virus, variants, disease severity, transmissibility, and the like. They have never even hinted at doing or saying anything for political or face-saving reasons. Everyone I know that works in public health does so because they want people to be healthy.
Second, those of us who work in this field are changing our own behaviors in exactly the same way that the larger public is being asked to do. At my workplace we're nearly all vaccinated and we went maskless (for vaccinated people) at work a month or more ago. We just started wearing masks again this week.

 

[Aldebaran]

Nope that’s not what I meant. I am wearing a mask to prevent the spread of the virus among unvaccinated people, including children. So that hospital workers don’t have to go through hell again, so that all of my friends in the hospitality industry don’t get laid off again, and to reduce the chance of new variants developing.

If you have the vaccine, you shouldn't need a mask. See post #129.

 

[sfs]

I see your argumentum ad verecundiam is well underway...

Look, you were the one who introduced the subject, when you objected to a preprint because it wasn't peer reviewed. If you don't trust those who are doing the peer review, why make that argument?

Also are you really claiming that your opinion on which papers are good is just as likely to be correct as someone who works full time in the field?

 

[Blade]

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

The sad part here is.. I agree. I read a month or more ago from the CDC about thousands that have died from the shot yet "RARELY HAPPENED" was the deffiniton. It was not hidden. Search today and those numbers now are fake not real.. it never happened. We can talk all day on just what they and the WHO and others in Washington said about MASKS!

Yeah.. never helped in the 1900's then and lol when you read when you buy that mask "this will not protect you from getting covid". Yeah its NOT that simple. When the CDC says Children under what 6 or so should NOT ware mask..yet just the other day the President aka Biden.. NOT President Trump.. but BIDEN said those same kids SHOULD ware masks. This was in JULY 2021.. that was the PRESIDENT.. does not that BOTHER anyone? Lol

So did the age rate change? Well unless your over 65 you still have 92+% chance of NOTHING happening to you if you get covid. I watched .. a news Station not Fox that said this new varient of Covid is DEADLY their words. So I then go searching for what Doctors that are NOT left or right what they say. WOW not one said "DEADLY".

Yet the media tells this lie to hundreds of not thousands (not sure how many watch them hold on to every word they now say). I can't be the only one out here that.. when I hear the president say one thing.. his staff say another.. the CDC the WHO say another....and we wonder WHY some do not want to get the shot? REALLY?

Sorry still STILL not FDA and you may not care about being a guinea pig but some people do and.. PRAISE GOD we all have a right to what we put in our bodies.

Oh side note.. SORRY Guinea pig.. you are SO CUTE!

 

[probinson]

So what's your solution?

Perhaps look at the data that we have and adapt. We know that this virus is most deadly to the elderly. We know that the risk of COVID is significantly age-stratified. Current CDC data shows that 79.7% of deaths from COVID have been in those over the age of 65. We know that obesity is the number one co-morbidity that predicts severe outcomes. So instead of lamenting the fact that healthy 18 and 19 year olds won't get vaccinated, perhaps a more focused approach is called for.

Perhaps we should not ignore that studies are beginning to show that natural immunity from prior COVID infection is likely at least as durable and lasting as vaccination. Maybe we should realize that according to the CDC's numbers, 34,631,477 people have natural immunity and therefore a vaccine does not carry as much benefit for them, if any at all.

It's not like we don't have scads of data at our fingertips. Instead of slapping masks on vaccinated people and hoping for the best (since it worked so well the first time), maybe it's time to take a more methodical and surgical approach, and attack COVID where it would be most impactful.

 

[pitabread]

PRAISE GOD we all have a right to what we put in our bodies.

The virus doesn't care about your rights.

 

[pitabread]

So instead of lamenting the fact that healthy 18 and 19 year olds won't get vaccinated, perhaps a more focused approach is called for.

You do know that those healthy unvaccinated 18 and 19 year olds can still serve as transmission vectors for the virus though, right?

Instead of slapping masks on vaccinated people and hoping for the best (since it worked so well the first time), maybe it's time to take a more methodical and surgical approach, and attack COVID where it would be most impactful.

Such as?

 

[ThisIsMe123]

Sorry still STILL not FDA

No worries, that'll be coming around the pike, probably around fall, and then...a lot of vaccination mandates will be put in action.

 

[Sparagmos]

If you have the vaccine, you shouldn't need a mask. See post #129.

It’s like you didn’t even read what you quoted…

 

[probinson]

Look, you were the one who introduced the subject, when you objected to a preprint because it wasn't peer reviewed. If you don't trust those who are doing the peer review, why make that argument?

You misunderstood. I was asking if you were OK with preprints, because I've had people tell me that the preprint studies I've referenced are invalid. I don't think that at all. In fact, I just posted this the other day;

The Absurdity of Peer Review

To be vividly clear, I have no objection to preprint studies.

Also are you really claiming that your opinion on which papers are good is just as likely to be correct as someone who works full time in the field?

That depends. If there's one thing I've learned throughout this pandemic, it's that a good many "experts" are yutzes and don't deserve a bit of trust. You can thank your colleagues that have politicized the pandemic for that distrust.

To be fair, I don't know you at all, and I'm not making any snap judgments.

 

[pitabread]

You can thank your colleagues that have politicized the pandemic for that distrust.

Wait, what? It's the scientists that have politicized the pandemic now?

 

[FireDragon76]

Look, you were the one who introduced the subject, when you objected to a preprint because it wasn't peer reviewed. If you don't trust those who are doing the peer review, why make that argument?

Also are you really claiming that your opinion on which papers are good is just as likely to be correct as someone who works full time in the field?

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” - Isaac Asimov

 

[probinson]

A couple of comments, since we're talking about a world I have some direct experience with.
First, I have been in a lot of meetings with people from the CDC, health departments, and academic research centers. These have involved a great deal of talk about data and studies concerning the virus, variants, disease severity, transmissibility, and the like. They have never even hinted at doing or saying anything for political or face-saving reasons. Everyone I know that works in public health does so because they want people to be healthy.

First of all, I have no doubt that the majority of people who work in public health do so because they care about people. But it's a hard sell if you want me to believe that the government bureaucrats at the top of these organizations have never done anything because of political reasons or to save face.

Kary Mullis, Nobel prize winner and inventor of the PCR test, (hopefully someone you would deem qualified to speak on this topic), had this to say about Dr. Fauci and "those at the top" back during the HIV crisis;

So who's assessment should I believe? You, random stranger on the Internet, or a Nobel Prize winner that witnessed the bureaucracy firsthand?

 

[probinson]

Wait, what? It's the scientists that have politicized the pandemic now?

Unfortunately, you can find politicization all throughout the pandemic, even throughout "the science." You'll often see me refer to it as The Science™ because it bears little resemblance to actual science or evidence-based medicine.

The damage is immense. Trust is at historic lows. Public health cannot be effective without the public's trust. And yet, day in and day out, it's almost like they're trying to see what new and imaginative way they can damage that trust even further.

 

[pitabread]

Unfortunately, you can find politicization all throughout the pandemic, even throughout "the science." You'll often see me refer to it as The Science™ because it bears little resemblance to actual science or evidence-based medicine.

The damage is immense. Trust is at historic lows. Public health cannot be effective without the public's trust. And yet, day in and day out, it's almost like they're trying to see what new and imaginative way they can damage that trust even further.

As an outsider looking in, the mistrust in the U.S. seems a lot less to do with the scientists than it does the fractured, partisan divide in American politics and the substantial anti-science segment of the U.S. population.

In Canada, the approach looked very different than in the U.S. People generally trusted in the government's response, who in turn largely deferred to health experts in dispensing guidance. And the result is Canada has had roughly 1/3 the death rate as the U.S. and we have a higher vaccination rate (even after getting off to a later start).

So no, this doesn't appear to be strictly an issue among the scientists. In the U.S. there is a lot more to it than that.

 

[Aldebaran]

It’s like you didn’t even read what you quoted…

Part of what you said that I quoted was: "I am wearing a mask to prevent the spread of the virus among unvaccinated people, including children."

That's the main part I was responding to.
My response now is the same as before.

 

[probinson]

You do know that those healthy unvaccinated 18 and 19 year olds can still serve as transmission vectors for the virus though, right?

Ah yes, I forgot. We're all "transmission vectors" now.

But what if those healthy, unvaccinated 18 and 19 year olds have had prior COVID infection, as many of them have? Studies (like this one) would suggest that they have at least as much immunity as those that are vaccinated.

Or how about kids age 12-17, that the UK has opted to NOT mass vaccinate, citing data that shows that vaccination of kids this age carries a higher risk than contracting the virus (emphasis added);

The health benefits in this population are small, and the benefits to the wider population are highly uncertain. At this time, JCVI is of the view that the health benefits of universal vaccination in children and young people below the age of 18 years do not outweigh the potential risks.

JCVI statement on COVID-19 vaccination of children and young people aged 12 to 17 years: 15 July 2021​

This calls into question your assertion that young people are just spreading the virus all around willy-nilly. It also makes one wonder why the CDC is so adamant about vaccinating children and teens when the risks of vaccinating those in that age group are quite high compared to any benefits;

The CDC has projected a binary assuredness about the risk-reward calculus for young people, and in particular young males, yet evidence suggests much of the data is ambiguous at best, and contradictory at worst, to the CDC’s public messaging. By not acknowledging nuance and uncertainties, the CDC makes it harder, not easier, for Americans to make informed choices. And it makes it harder, not easier, for Americans to trust the authorities. This communication style only serves to feed anti-vaxxers and the conspiracy-minded who seize upon incongruities or exaggerated claims. By all accounts the vaccines are miraculous. But as Shakespeare warned, we don’t need to perfume the violet.

The CDC Owes Parents Better Messaging on the Vaccine for Kids​

Such as?

I gave examples in the post you quoted.