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

[probinson]

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.

I don't disagree that there is more in play here than the scientists, and all of the things you listed are certainly factors. But you are in denial if you think that trust isn't at lows because of the failures of public health. To repeat from my earlier link;

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 U.S. Government’s Noble Lies About COVID-19​

 

[pitabread]

But you are in denial if you think that trust isn't at lows because of the failures of public health. To repeat from my earlier link;

"Public health" in this context isn't strictly the purview of the scientists. It's also the politicians that are responsible for messaging, policy making, etc. If they opt not to listen to the subject matter experts, then they are equally if not more so to blame for such failures.

Couple that with the significant anti-science contingent in the U.S. and it's a recipe for disaster.

And this is exactly what we've seen in the U.S., particularly under the previous administration, were politicians that seemed at war with the health experts in question. Heck, your previous president didn't even know what the SARS-CoV-2 virus is!

 

[pitabread]

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.

Keep in mind that study was done before the delta variant took hold in the U.S. We don't yet know which will yield longer-term protections when it comes to emerging variants.

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​

Certainly there are going to be some unknowns and potential trade-offs of any new(er) vaccines. I'm not surprised to see differing advice at this stage. This has been the hallmark of the pandemic as different organizations and individuals assess things and make judgement calls.

The current data in the U.S. is showing rising caseloads among the less-vaccinated regions. Time will tell how this will play out, but it's not looking good for the anti-vaxx crowd.

 

[probinson]

Certainly there are going to be some unknowns and potential trade-offs of any new(er) vaccines. I'm not surprised to see differing advice at this stage. This has been the hallmark of the pandemic as different organizations and individuals assess things and make judgement calls.

Yes, but that's the problem with mandates. What if your child's school mandates vaccinations? Now you have to choose between complying with a mandate that some science has concluded actually puts your child at greater risk, or keeping your child out of that school. A modicum of humility would be appreciated in these "recommendations" rather than the "just shut up and listen to the 'experts'!" approach.

Yesterday, the CDC Director, Dr. Walensky, said in her statement that it's always up to you to decide if you want to wear a mask, but clearly she is detached from reality. There are all sorts of "mandates" based on dubious science, and we must abide by them until the next dubious science comes along and changes that recommendation. Somewhere along the line, we went from the CDC offering guidance to the CDC becoming an enforcer of mandates, and trust dwindled right along with it.

This pandemic preparedness plan published in January 2008 by the ACLU has been completely ignored, but almost prophetic in nature (emphasis added);

The lessons from history should be kept in mind whenever we are told by government officials that “tough,” liberty-limiting actions are needed to protect us from dangerous diseases. Specifically:

• Coercion and brute force are rarely necessary. In fact they are generally counterproductive—they gratuitously breed public distrust and encourage the people who are most in need of care to evade public health authorities.

• On the other hand, effective, preventive strategies that rely on voluntary participation do work. Simply put, people do not want to contract smallpox, influenza or other dangerous diseases. They want positive government help in avoiding and treating disease. As long as public officials are working to help people rather than to punish them, people are likely to engage willingly in any and all efforts to keep their families and communities healthy.

• Minorities and other socially disadvantaged populations tend to bear the brunt of tough public health measures.

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/privacy/pemic_report.pdf​

 

[loveofourlord]

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.

Are you just obtuse, or back tracking now you been caught being racist, she made the point because people like you were avoiding china town out of fear of catching covid, racists made a huge deal out of it hell that's where your argument comes from. That Pelosi wasn't taking the virus seriously and telling me to go to china town and risk getting the virus. If your nor racist, might not want to use racist talking points.

Or complain about someone trying to deal with racism.

 

[KCfromNC]

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.

No, you don't get it. The fact that people aren't omniscient and can't predict the future means we just need to stop trying to do anything and wait for herd immunity to fix everything. I mean, what other choice would possibly make sense in light of us not knowing every possible potential outcome?

 

[KCfromNC]

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

That'll show 'em. Good job!

 

[KCfromNC]

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.

If I remember correctly, the issue was with the claim that data from a single pre-print study led to an "undeniable conclusion".

 

[Danthemailman]

Complete Surrender: Joe Biden to Issue Vaccine Mandate for Millions of Federal Workers

Joe Biden to Demand Millions of Federal Workers Get Vaccinated

President Joe Biden will announce Thursday millions of civilian federal workers must prove they’ve received a coronavirus vaccination "or" be forced to submit to regular government testing and stringent social distancing, as well as travel and masking restrictions.

I expected the article to say receive a coronavirus vaccination "or" be fired from your job. Maybe that's coming next after the vaccine is FDA approved.

 

[sfs]

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

On any matter related to biochemistry, you should believe the biochemist who won the Nobel Prize for his work in biochemistry. On any matter related to public health or virology, you should believe anyone who works in those fields rather than a biochemist who did no work at all in them. And on any matter related to AIDS, you should believe almost anyone on the planet rather than Kary Mullis, who was an HIV denialist and a complete crackpot on the subject (among others -- the guy was decidedly odd).

 

[hedrick]

Complete Surrender: Joe Biden to Issue Vaccine Mandate for Millions of Federal Workers

Joe Biden to Demand Millions of Federal Workers Get Vaccinated

President Joe Biden will announce Thursday millions of civilian federal workers must prove they’ve received a coronavirus vaccination "or" be forced to submit to regular government testing and stringent social distancing, as well as travel and masking restrictions.

I expected the article to say receive a coronavirus vaccination "or" be fired from your job. Maybe that's coming next after the vaccine is FDA approved.

I think there may be legal problems in the Federal government about firing people for this. While a useful attempt, weekly testing really isn’t that difficult. I doubt it will change many minds. I’d be interested in @sfs’s view whether it is likely to catch cases early enough to make a difference.

 

[ThisIsMe123]

Complete Surrender: Joe Biden to Issue Vaccine Mandate for Millions of Federal Workers

Joe Biden to Demand Millions of Federal Workers Get Vaccinated

President Joe Biden will announce Thursday m

I think there may be legal problems in the Federal government about firing people for this. While a useful attempt, weekly testing really isn’t that difficult. I doubt it will change many minds. I’d be interested in @sfs’s view whether it is likely to catch cases early enough to make a difference.

illions of civilian federal workers must prove they’ve received a coronavirus vaccination "or" be forced to submit to regular government testing and stringent social distancing, as well as travel and masking restrictions.

I expected the article to say receive a coronavirus vaccination "or" be fired from your job. Maybe that's coming next after the vaccine is FDA approved.

Homeland Security already gave people their options. Get vaccinated or be fired...this was months ago. Google, Netflix, and Facebook employees also announced this as a requirement to work for them.

 

[pitabread]

This pandemic preparedness plan published in January 2008 by the ACLU has been completely ignored, but almost prophetic in nature (emphasis added);

Read the very next paragraph:

On the other hand, effective, preventive strategies that rely on voluntary participation do work. Simply put, people do not want to contract smallpox, influenza or other dangerous diseases. They want positive government help in avoiding and treating disease. As long as public officials are working to help people rather than to punish them, people are likely to engage willingly in any and all efforts to keep their families and communities healthy.

They are assuming people are rational actors and are always willing to do the right thing. But as this pandemic has shown us, a lot of people are *not* rational actors and are *not* willing to do the right thing. Hence the need for government enforced rules to try to keep everyone collectively safe.

Vaccines are a prime example. Allowing people to volunteer for vaccines has shown us that a sizeable portion of the U.S. population is unwilling to get the vaccine. This is prolonging the pandemic, raising the risk of the evolution of more variants, and collectively making things worse for everyone.

So you're forgive me if I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for those folks when faces with the government telling them what to do. These people are clearly not able to make choices in the best interest of their society on their own.

 

[pitabread]

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

COVID-19 likes this

 

[hedrick]

To my knowledge, most successful vaccination campaigns in the past used requirements. In most cases it was done in schools, but George Washington required smallpox vaccinations for troops.

 

[Fr. Appletree]

Complete Surrender: Joe Biden to Issue Vaccine Mandate for Millions of Federal Workers

Joe Biden to Demand Millions of Federal Workers Get Vaccinated

President Joe Biden will announce Thursday millions of civilian federal workers must prove they’ve received a coronavirus vaccination "or" be forced to submit to regular government testing and stringent social distancing, as well as travel and masking restrictions.

I expected the article to say receive a coronavirus vaccination "or" be fired from your job. Maybe that's coming next after the vaccine is FDA approved.

I imagine a lot of gigantic and powerful unions will sue.

 

[rjs330]

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

I did the right thing during 2020, wore a mask and kept distance...

Did the right thing in 2021, got vaccinated...

This particular reversal in mask guidance? I'm not so sure...

Given the CDC directors comments and statements earlier, there seems to be a breakdown in the logic somewhere.

She openly acknowledged that the chance of contracting any serious level of disease when vaccinated is low... she also acknowledged that while it's still possible to transmit with an asymptomatic infection, it's less likely.

We know that the vaccine is widely available for anyone who wants to get one and there's no supply issues stopping anyone from getting vaccinated.

We know that infections in the age group that's not currently eligible are overwhelmingly mild or asymptomatic.

Given these pieces of info, wouldn't that mean that me going back to wearing a mask is solely for the benefit of anti-vaccine types who don't take it seriously and have no intention of getting vaccinated anyway?


Maybe we can come up with a new term for people like myself who have no interest in going back to masking for the benefit of people who've used words like "sheeple" to describe me for the last 18 months. Maybe "second wave anti-mask"? Sort of like the term "second wave feminist"?

I did not he same. I wore a mask, social distanced, my church didn't have in building services, etc etc. I got vaccinated so I could get back to normal.

Now they want me to return? NO! This is why people are so skeptical about what they really know. We were told not to wear masks. Then we were told to wear masks. We were told so many different things. We were told get a vaccine so we can get back to normal. Now we are told not go back to normal, but wear a mask again.

These people have no idea what they are doing.

I'm not wearing masks again.

 

[rjs330]

Hey man, I agree. If you don't wear a mask you are going to literally kill someone else. From now on and forever the risk of not wearing a mask is too great.

Not just kill someone, but also make someone sick. We don't want to be responsible for making anyone sick, so mask on!

 

[rjs330]

Correct... if an unvaccinated person comes into contact with me, the chances of them transmitting to me is small, and if it did occur, would likely be asymptomatic or very mild. And if they came into contact with you while you're fully vaccinated and wearing a mask, would be even smaller.

So, in either scenario, making me wear a mask while being vaccinated doesn't improve your situation at all.

Making me wear a mask at this point only offers a small measure protection to the group of people who don't take it seriously, and are likely just going to go out an engage in reckless behavior anyway.

What's the point of me wearing one to protect them, if they're just going to go to a house party an hour later, unvaccinated?

In any case, making vaccinated people wear a mask (who are unlikely to be transmitters anyway) provides only a miniscule benefit to people who don't want to get vaccinated and think the virus is "not all that serious"

It's a matter of personal responsibility and personal risk. If people want to accept the risk of not wearing a mask then that is on them. It's not up to me to try and mitigate the risk of their personal choice.

 

[whatbogsends]

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?

He introduced the subject of questioning pre-prints validity, because when he had previously put forth a pre-print as evidence supporting his position, there was an immediate dismissal of the study solely because it was a pre-print.

If you noticed, it was brought up and then asked as a question (unlike the person previously, who dismissed probinson's study because it was a pre-print).