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

[pitabread]

It's a matter of personal responsibility and personal risk.

Except that highly transmissive viruses are *not* just a matter of personal risk. It's a matter of everyone's collective risk.

I am still dumbfounded that after all this time, people don't know how viruses work.

 

[ThisIsMe123]

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).

Right, even if it was "peer reviewed", he'd still dismiss it for whatever reason.

He has an answer for everything.

 

[sfs]

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.

There are conditions under which weekly testing can be very useful. If local transmission is low and you're dealing with a fairly closed community (like a primarily residential college, for example), weekly testing can catch a local outbreak early and quarantine those exposed. If transmission is high and there's lots of outside exposure, you'll be able to prevent some secondary transmission but it's not likely to accomplish a great deal. (My workplace had mandatory testing every four days through most of the pandemic for those who were working on site. But we also did our own testing, which made it easier.)

 

[probinson]

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

As usual, you're not remembering correctly.

 

[cow451]

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

 

[probinson]

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.

I thought we had already established that "the right thing" is somewhat subjective based on what we currently know?

Is it "the right thing" to vaccinate my 17-year old son when there is data that would suggest vaccinating him carries a higher risk to him than if he just contracted COVID? Is it "the right thing" to require NFL players, young and healthy athletes, that have had documented prior COVID infections to be vaccinated when they likely have at least as much immunity as a vaccinated person? Is it "the right thing" to vaccinate those at the lowest risk, and even toss around the idea of a third booster shot (with no clinical data to support it) in the United States when poorer countries are struggling to get their most vulnerable elderly vaccinated, creating a breeding ground for even more variants?

Hence the need for government enforced rules to try to keep everyone collectively safe.

It's astounding to me how many people think that the government has purely altruistic motives to keep people "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.

Yep, and your classification of the need for vaccination as an absolute certainty of "the right thing" is helping to drive that hesitation. Noble lies from public health are also high on the list. You'd think we'd want to vaccinate the most vulnerable people all over the world to reduce the chance of more variants emerging. This is what I mean by a surgical approach. Focus the vaccines where they will help the most. 12-17 year olds in developed countries is NOT where they will help the most. Not even close. Elderly and vulnerable people in third-world countries is where these vaccinations would be most beneficial.

Covid-19 vaccines for children: hypothetical benefits to adults do not outweigh risks to children - The BMJ

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.

Anti-vaxxers are a small (but loud) bunch of people, but not the majority of those refusing vaccination. The vast majority of people who are hesitating on the vaccine have rational concerns that are being marginalized and dismissed. As long as this binary assuredness of "doing the right thing" continues without the acknowledgement that the benefit/risk calculus varies with a host of factors, vaccination hesitation will continue.

 

[probinson]

More vaccine "facts"? How about, experts don't know how long you're protected from COVID-19 after vaccination?

We don't have the benefit of time or historical data on this topic, so the facts are that "experts" don't know how long natural immunity OR vaccination induced immunity will last. So why is there a constant downplaying of natural immunity from prior infection? Is anyone even attempting to determine how long natural immunity lasts, and if not, why not?

 

[probinson]

The CDC has this to say on the topic of natural immunity (emphasis added);

Getting COVID-19 may offer some natural protection, known as immunity. Current evidence suggests that reinfection with the virus that causes COVID-19 is uncommon in the 90 days after initial infection. However, experts don’t know for sure how long this protection lasts, and the risk of severe illness and death from COVID-19 far outweighs any benefits of natural immunity.

Answering Patients’ Questions about COVID-19 Vaccination | CDC​

However, a recent article in the BMJ says this (emphasis added);

There is reason to think that immunity could last for several months or a couple of years, at least, given what we know about other viruses and what we have seen so far in terms of antibodies in patients with covid-19 and in people who have been vaccinated.

How long does covid-19 immunity last?​

From MedPage Today on the AMA's debate on the value of natural immunity (emphasis added);

Gregory Pinto, MD, a delegate from New York, called for policy recommending "that vaccination credentials be provided on the basis of natural immunity or previous SARS-CoV-2 infection" during proceedings on the virtual "floor."

He argued that there "is no indication that immunity derived from prior COVID infection is in any way inferior to that derived from vaccination." Therefore, any immunity credentialing service ought to include natural immunity stemming from a prior infection, he said.​

https://www.medpagetoday.com/meetingcoverage/ama/93179​

Also from MedPage Today (emphasis added);

Earlier this month the World Health Organization released a scientific update stating that most people who have recovered from COVID-19 develop a strong protective immune response. Importantly, they summarize that within 4 weeks of infection, 90% to 99% of people who recover from COVID-19 develop detectable neutralizing antibodies. Furthermore, they conclude -- given the limited amount of time to observe cases -- that the immune response remains strong for at least 6 to 8 months after infection.

This update echoes what the NIH reported in January 2021: The immune response of more than 95% of people who recovered from COVID-19 had durable memories of the virus up to 8 months after infection. The NIH went further to state that those findings "provide hope" that people who get vaccinated will develop similar lasting immunity.

....

Moving forward, policymakers should include natural immunity as determined by an accurate and reliable antibody test or the documentation of prior infection (previous positive PCR or antigen test), as evidence of immunity equal to that of vaccination. That immunity should be given the same societal status as vaccine-inducted immunity. Such a policy will greatly reduce anxiety and increase access to travel, events, family visits, and more. The updated policy will allow those who have recovered to celebrate their recovery by informing them of their immunity, allowing them to safely discard their masks, show their faces, and join the legions of those vaccinated.​

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/92836​

It should be reiterated that there are definitely uncertainties concerning natural immunity, but those exact same uncertainties exist with vaccines. Until more time passes, we have no idea and no way to know how long natural or vaccine-induced immunity will be effective against COVID. With all of the above and no explanation as to why natural immunity is being downplayed with no data to support that marginalization, people will correctly question the reasoning for it.

 

[KCfromNC]

As usual, you're not remembering correctly.

I imagine if there was evidence for this claim I'd be reading a post with it instead of this one.

 

[probinson]

I imagine if there was evidence for this claim I'd be reading a post with it instead of this one.

I already tried that with you. It was pointless and a massive waste of my time.

Fool me once...

 

[KCfromNC]

I thought we had already established that "the right thing" is somewhat subjective based on what we currently know?

Is it "the right thing" to vaccinate my 17-year old son when there is data that would suggest vaccinating him carries a higher risk to him than if he just contracted COVID?

Depends. Is this data from the guy who predicted herd immunity would make covid disappear by April?

 

[probinson]

Depends. Is this data from the guy who predicted herd immunity would make covid disappear by April?

See? Here I am posting legitimate concerns that people have, and I'm getting condescending, snarky responses.

You need look no further than this dismissive attitude to understand why there is such a high level of vaccine hesitaiton.

 

[whatbogsends]

I imagine if there was evidence for this claim I'd be reading a post with it instead of this one.

His claim was correct. The entirety of your response was to disregard the study Probinson linked because it was a preprint.

Well, I already posted one link. Here's another;

Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination, and vaccines can be safely prioritized to those who have not been infected before.

Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals​

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.​

 

[probinson]

Depends. Is this data from the guy who predicted herd immunity would make covid disappear by April?

"The guy" you are referring to is Dr. Marty Makary, Professor at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.

And as usual, you're intentionally distorting and misrepresenting his opinion. Here is the article for anyone who hasn't read it;

Opinion | We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April

You'll note that the word "disappear" is nowhere in the article. Also to be preemptive of other potential baseless and false claims, there is no mention of "magic" either.

In fact, Dr. Makary had this to say (emphasis added);

Herd immunity has been well-documented in the Brazilian city of Manaus, where researchers in the Lancet reported the prevalence of prior Covid-19 infection to be 76%, resulting in a significant slowing of the infection. Doctors are watching a new strain that threatens to evade prior immunity. But countries where new variants have emerged, such as the U.K., South Africa and Brazil, are also seeing significant declines in daily new cases. The risk of new variants mutating around the prior vaccinated or natural immunity should be a reminder that Covid-19 will persist for decades after the pandemic is over. It should also instill a sense of urgency to develop, authorize and administer a vaccine targeted to new variants.​

Not only did Dr. Makary NOT predict that COVID would "disappear" in this op-ed. He said quite clearly that it will persist for decades after the pandemic is over.

Apparently, some people have conflated "herd-immunity" with the new, and foolish, "zero-COVID". Most people know that COVID is going to be endemic long after the pandemic is over. That doesn't mean "herd immunity" can't been reached.

 

[probinson]

His claim was correct. The entirety of your response was to disregard the study Probinson linked because it was a preprint.

Thanks. I'm glad someone is paying attention.

 

[rjs330]

Wow....racist against, geeze thought we were over this racist stuff.

We don't call diseases after where they are from because often that's not WHERE they are from, just where they are first discovered. The response to the name creates the haraassment and attacks on those related to the name, just like your second example being extremely racist and bigoted, and having no purpose. So you kinda owned yourself with your second example proving the point of the first.

Well in this case we know it came from CHY-na. It's COVID from China. It's China's fault and China's responsibility at this point.

 

[KCfromNC]

See? Here I am posting legitimate concerns that people have, and I'm getting condescending, snarky responses.

I can't help but notice that you didn't actually answer the question

You need look no further than this dismissive attitude to understand why there is such a high level of vaccine hesitaiton.

I appreciate you thinking so highly of my influence, but I seriously doubt you're correct.

 

[KCfromNC]

Opinion | We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April

You'll note that the word "disappear" is nowhere in the article.

At the current trajectory, I expect Covid will be mostly gone by April
​

I mean, we can nitpick about my summary of his claim, but how's this prediction working out?

 

[probinson]

I can't help but notice that you didn't actually answer the question

Whoever said there are no stupid questions clearly never spent any time on forums.

I appreciate you thinking so highly of my influence, but I seriously doubt you're correct.

Not you personally. Your attitude of condescension and dismissiveness. It's pervasive and off-putting, and it absolutely is a driver of vaccine hesitation whether you think it is or not.

That's why I've posted several articles from medical publications, doctors and scientists warning against it. Since likely no one bothered to read it, here is a quote from the "noble lie" article I posted yesterday;

We worry that vaccine policy among supporters of vaccines is increasingly anchored to the irrational views of those who oppose them—by always pursuing the opposite. Exaggerating the risk of the virus in the moment and failing to explore middle ground positions appear to be the antithesis of the anti-vax movement, which is an extremist effort to refuse vaccination. This seems a reflexive attempt to vaccinate at all costs—by creating fear in the public (despite falling adolescent rates) and pushing the notion that two doses of mRNA at the current dose level or nothing at all are the only two choices—a logical error called the fallacy of the excluded middle.

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

 

[probinson]

Some interesting thoughts from Dr. Vinay Prasad on MedPage Today. You really should read the whole thing, but here are some great excerpts (emphasis added);

When it comes to non-pharmacologic interventions such as mandatory business closures, mask mandates, and countless other interventions, the shocking conclusion of the last 18 months is this: We have learned next to nothing.

Yet, here we are again with CDC changing its mind on masking, but what new evidence is guiding the policy?

....

Anyone who considers themselves a scientist should be embarrassed by our collective failure to generate knowledge, and this failure is once again looming large. The CDC is again recommending vaccinated people to wear cloth masks in indoor public spaces, at least in locations where COVID is surging. The CDC director calls this "following the science," but it is not. It is following the TV pundits.

....

The CDC cannot "follow the science" because there is no relevant science. The proposition is at best science-y; a best guess based on political pressure, pundit anxiety, and mechanistic understanding.

....

If you start making vaccinated people mask again, will that be a disincentive for the "vaccine curious" to vaccinate? After all, they are already hesitant -- could they take from the guidance the tacit message that the vaccine is not that protective after all? P.S. -- The vaccine is that protective, and it retains amazing efficacy against Delta!

....

When the history books are written about the use of non-pharmacologic measures during this pandemic, we will look as pre-historic and barbaric and tribal as our ancestors during the plagues of the middle ages. What the books won't capture is how, in the moment, our experts were simply so sure of themselves.


https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/93803​