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

[Halbhh]

If we were smart, we would ensure that the most vulnerable all over the world were vaccinated before we worried about vaccinating children and young adults, who have almost no risk from the virus at all, and that would actually help reduce the risk of the emergence of new variants

Well, since the way variants arise more often is just virus spreading to large numbers of hosts, that is younger mobile people as much as the older.... then logically there isn't a strong protection against the rise of variants in vaccinating only the most vulnerable, but instead we'd only get just the good and worthwhile effect of reducing deaths currently. To reduce new variants, the only solution past high mask wearing really is massive vaccine production and people getting shots, including those 20-30 yr olds just as much as older, soon after the most vulnerable. No real short cut i can see.

 

[probinson]

What amazes me the most about all of this is the quick dismissal of verifiable information. The willingness to marginalize the opinions of a professor at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, or a doctor of oncology, and decide that they are just opinion pieces and therefore of no value. Yet Dr. Fauci can get on TV and spout some science-y sounding explanations about nasopharynx viral loads with no evidence whatsoever and everybody just stands there in awe without a second thought.

RIP, evidence-based science.

 

[Aldebaran]

As a Canadian, the general sentiment here is we're dumbfounded by how things have unfolded in the U.S.

Imagine how we feel in the U.S. while watching the elimination of freedom in Canada.

 

[Aldebaran]

I do know it works. I've done the research since back when it all started.

Then explain the data shown in post #265. Why did the masks NOT work?

 

[probinson]

You've dismissed thousands of published works in the same fashion. Why lend any more credence to this particular article than anything else?

What specifically do you dispute in this article? Why do you find it is not credible?

What is your criteria for determining what is credible?

The evidence pyramid? You know, that thing we all used to rely on to determine quality of information.

"Imperfect knowledge" is fine when you have nothing else. It is inexcusable that we have nothing more than "imperfect knowledge" on NPIs after 18 months.

 

[pitabread]

Imagine how we feel in the U.S. while watching the elimination of freedom in Canada.

What elimination of freedom?

It's also a little ironic to say that since historically the U.S. has ranked lower on freedom indices than Canada:

Canada’s economic freedom score is 77.9, making its economy the 9th freest in the 2021 Index. Its overall score has decreased by 0.3 point, primarily because of a decline in property rights. Canada is ranked 1st among 32 countries in the Americas region, and its overall score is above the regional and world averages.​

 

[probinson]

That doesn't necessarily invalidate knowledge gleaned from those methods. It just means that we don't and will never have 100% perfect knowledge.

The main reason we don't have better knowledge is because no one has even attempted to generate better knowledge, and I have no idea why.

I realize that the world is complex. Ironically, that's exactly why these mechanistic studies are not informative in terms of benefit.

I reject your premise that this is the best we can do. It absolutely is not.

 

[pitabread]

What specifically do you dispute in this article? Why do you find it is not credible?

I didn't say anything about its credibility. Rather, I'm asking *you* why you find this credible, but not thousands of other published works?

The evidence pyramid? You know, that thing we all used to rely on to determine quality of information.

Is this how you specifically evaluate the publications you are consuming?

When you read a particular article or paper, how do you evaluate it specifically? What is your process?

"Imperfect knowledge" is fine when you have nothing else. It is inexcusable that we have nothing more than "imperfect knowledge" on NPIs after 18 months.

We always have imperfect knowledge. Perfect knowledge is a pipe dream.

 

[pitabread]

The main reason we don't have better knowledge is because no one has even attempted to generate better knowledge, and I have no idea why.

That's utterly false. Research re: the pandemic is actively ongoing.

I reject your premise that this is the best we can do. It absolutely is not.

Then what's your solution? What would you do instead?

 

[Aldebaran]

What elimination of freedom?

(It's also a little ironic since historically the U.S. has ranked lower on freedom indices than Canada.)

.

 

[probinson]

That's utterly false. Research re: the pandemic is actively ongoing

Can you point me to the RCTs that are happening on masking? Social distancing? Lockdowns?

 

[probinson]

I didn't say anything about its credibility. Rather, I'm asking *you* why you find this credible, but not thousands of other published works?

So you don't fine anything in it lacking in credibility? Why are we talking about why I find it credible then? Perhaps to distract from the very valid points Dr. Prasad raises?

We always have imperfect knowledge. Perfect knowledge is a pipe dream.

Again, a poor cop-out.

We may never have perfect knowledge, but we could certainly have better knowledge.

 

[stevil]

You forgot what I just posted, a video of the guy in charge of what you refer to as "a reset" saying that if we've been vaccinated, we no longer need to wear a mask.

Sure, yes. The confusion continues into the Biden administration also
I'm not sure what the official USA position is right now.
Is there still a pandemic task force? Was what Biden said in that video consistent with the message coming from the official task force at that time?

I understand the CDC have been changing their position on masks. Does the CDC position represent the official USA taskforce position?

And when changes are adopted into the official position, is a suitable explanation given on why the change in position has occured?

The in USA you have your Federal level and your State level.
Are these positions on the pandemic consistent?

USA is a confusing beast.

But I guess he gets a pass, even though he still listens to Fauci, who you say should have been seen as the definitive position for USA, and is the one who keeps changing his mind about what we're supposed to be doing. "Wear a mask even if vaccinated" directly contradicts what biden said.

I think everyone should be up for criticism.

1. Does USA still have a pandemic task force?
2. Who is on that task force?
3. What is their current position with regards to masks?
4. What was their position when Biden was recorded in that video?
5. If Fauci is on the task force, what is his current position? Is it consistent with the task force position?
6. If Biden's message is inconsistent with that of the task force then he should be challenged on that.

What does it mean if the President's position is different from that of the taskforce. Which position is the official one?

 

[probinson]

Is this how you specifically evaluate the publications you are consuming?

When you read a particular article or paper, how do you evaluate it specifically? What is your process?

Quality of evidence.

139 clients and 2 hairdressers? Low quality evidence. A cloth mannequin in a controlled environment with 2 masks strapped to its face and a disclaimer that none of these results are actually applicable to real-life scenarios? Low quality evidence. Studies that examine set time periods while case numbers are dropping while simultaneously ignoring the time periods when case numbers were rising? Low quality evidence. Mechanistic studies that examine aerosols and particle behavior in a controlled laboratory environment without taking into account behavioral science and how real people in real world situations will affect the results? Low quality evidence.

Yet all of the above are what we've used to justify masking and other mitigation measures since the beginning of the pandemic. And there shows no sign of stopping. I fully anticipate that the CDC will publish a "study" after the inevitable drop of cases occurs in the US "proving" that the reinstitution of the mask mandate was the reason why cases came down.

In my home state of Pennsylvania, the DoH did that here. They instituted a stricter lockdown in December, and as cases dropped, they claimed the mitigation measures were the reason. The only problem with that hypothesis is that case numbers were declining a full week before any of the mitigation measures were actually in effect. But that didn't stop them from claiming that the mitigation measures were the reason for it. Apparently in the land of non-evidence based science, even the threat of instituting mitigation measures is sufficient to influence the case curve.

Low. Quality. Evidence.

 

[pitabread]

So you don't fine anything in it lacking in credibility? Why are we talking about why I find it credible then? Perhaps to distract from the very valid points Dr. Prasad raises?

I'm trying to understand how you evaluate information and determine what is credible and what is not.

We may never have perfect knowledge, but we could certainly have better knowledge.

We could always have better knowledge. That's the consequence of having imperfect knowledge.

 

[pitabread]

Quality of evidence.

139 clients and 2 hairdressers? Low quality evidence. A cloth mannequin in a controlled environment with 2 masks strapped to its face and a disclaimer that none of these results are actually applicable to real-life scenarios? Low quality evidence. Studies that examine set time periods while case numbers are dropping while simultaneously ignoring the time periods when case numbers were rising? Low quality evidence. Mechanistic studies that examine aerosols and particle behavior in a controlled laboratory environment without taking into account behavioral science and how real people in real world situations will affect the results? Low quality evidence.

What is your criteria though to determine quality of evidence? Do you have backgrounds in these particular types of assessments that allow you to make that judgement? What is your field of expertise that allows you to make these assertations?

From we're I'm sitting, this just looks like handwaving.

 

[probinson]

We could always have better knowledge. That's the consequence of having imperfect knowledge.

Consider this; what if public health doesn't want better knowledge? Can you just imagine if an RCT of masking was done per rigorous scientific standards and the results were that they don't actually reduce viral spread in practice? Heads would roll! And there'd be an awful lot of egg on people's faces that have hitched their wagon to the low-quality evidence of the efficacy of masking.

But more likely what would be found is that this all or nothing approach to masking is silly. There are likely scenarios where masking is beneficial. High transmission areas in tight, indoor spaces may well warrant a fitted N95. Taking your dog for a walk outside by yourself with a homemade mask made from your old Guns 'N Roses t-shirt across your face? Maybe not so much.

 

[probinson]

From we're I'm sitting, this just looks like handwaving.

I know that. And from where I'm sitting, it doesn't look to me like you are asking questions in earnest.

Instead of continually talking about me and my "process", perhaps you'd like to discuss any of the valid points I've raised in this thread. Because it sure looks to me like you're just attempting to distract from those points.

 

[pitabread]

Consider this; what if public health doesn't want better knowledge? Can you just imagine if an RCT of masking was done per rigorous scientific standards and the results were that they don't actually reduce viral spread in practice? Heads would roll! And there'd be an awful lot of egg on people's faces that have hitched their wagon to the low-quality evidence of the efficacy of masking.

If people are that insecure that they couldn't take revising policy based on new information, they shouldn't be in those positions in the first place.

But I wouldn't fault those for making those judgement calls at the time. I understand that people often make decisions with imperfect and transient information. In fact, I work for an organization where we make those types of judgements with respect the pandemic. It's part of what comes with the territory of leadership roles.

But more likely what would be found is that this all or nothing approach to masking is silly. There are likely scenarios where masking is beneficial. High transmission areas in tight, indoor spaces may well warrant a fitted N95. Taking your dog for a walk outside by yourself with a homemade mask made from your old Guns 'N Roses t-shirt across your face? Maybe not so much.

I agree with this. There are certainly different levels of risk, mask effectiveness, etc.

But this also reflects the challenge of policy-making. You'll never have policies that cover every possible scenario. Nor can policies be explicitly enforced across the board.

 

[pitabread]

I know that. And from where I'm sitting, it doesn't look to me like you are asking questions in earnest.

Instead of continually talking about me and my "process", perhaps you'd like to discuss any of the valid points I've raised in this thread. Because it sure looks to me like you're just attempting to distract from those points.

No, I'm going to keep picking on this. I'm genuinely curious how you're making these assessments and what you're basing them on.

How are you determining quality of evidence with respect to studies? How are you determining what is credible as what is not? What is your background / area of expertise that allows you to make these assessments?