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

[FireDragon76]

Do you have any peer-reviewed scientific data to prove this?

Sure. 600,000+ dead Americans, the worst death rate from COVID of any developed nation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh that's just too rich! Fauci admits to moving the goal posts PARTLY based on science? Wow that's trust worthy right there! I partly cook my hamburger z but I wouldn't want to eat it that way.

You state epidemiologists saying it's 60-70% then say Fauci thinks it's 90%. Well that totally makes him.fillowing the science. Oh wait, he followed his gut. Well at least partly.

Yup, trust that guy.

You need to read the whole post to understand it.

 

[Aldebaran]

Better to listen to Dr. Fauci than to the last guy whose advice involved drinking bleach.

Provide evidence that ANYone advised doing that.

 

[Aldebaran]

Sure. 600,000+ dead Americans, the worst death rate from COVID of any developed nation.

I wasn't asking what China's lack of transparency and the political roadblocks by democrats in Congress ended up causing. But I suppose we could look at that if you really want to .

 

[FireDragon76]

Provide evidence that ANYone advised doing that.

"I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs." - Donald J. Trump

And people actually tried doing that. Poison control hotlines had record cases of people drinking bleach to try to prevent the Coronavirus.

Calls To Poison Centers Spike After The President’s Comments About Using Disinfectants To Treat Coronavirus

 

[FireDragon76]

I wasn't asking what China's lack of transparency and the political roadblocks by democrats in Congress ended up causing. But I suppose we could look at that if you really want to .

China didn't force Donald Trump to defy scientific guidelines about controlling a pandemic. IF we had done that, we would have had only 100,000-200,000 dead.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure. 600,000+ dead Americans, the worst death rate from COVID of any developed nation.

Actually we are fourth or better. We barely beat out the UK that has 10 more tenth per million than we do.

COVID Live Update: 197,381,922 Cases and 4,214,877 Deaths from the Coronavirus - Worldometer

 

[Aldebaran]

And people actually tried doing that. Poison control hotlines had record cases of people drinking bleach to try to prevent the Coronavirus.

Calls To Poison Centers Spike After The President’s Comments About Using Disinfectants To Treat Coronavirus

Nothing you quoted said anything about drinking bleach.

 

[FireDragon76]

Nothing you quoted said anything about drinking bleach.

Trump suggested that injecting or consuming disinfectants could be curative.

 

[Aldebaran]

China didn't force Donald Trump to defy scientific guidelines about controlling a pandemic. IF we had done that, we would have had only 100,000-200,000 dead.

Donald Trump didn't force China to conceal the seriousness of the virus they had. However, he did attempt to stop travel from China, and was opposed by the democrats for it. They were more interested in calling Trump a racist for that, which demonstrated they were more interested in political wrangling than stopping the virus.

 

[Aldebaran]

Trump suggested that injecting or consuming disinfectants could be curative.

Nothing about bleach then?

 

[KCfromNC]

"For now" has been in effect since "2 weeks to flatten the curve", although it ended with, "If you've been fully vaccinated, you no longer need to wear a mask"---Joe biden.

And now we've progressed to "Wear a mask even if you've been vaccinated".

You think that's bad? Get a load of this : a month or two ago the weather people told me it was going to be sunny. And today they're telling me it is going to rain. I mean, they call themselves experts? Bah!

 

[KCfromNC]

We know nothing more about the efficacy of masks, social distancing, lockdowns

Not sure who this we is, but it doesn't seem to include people who do this for a living, e.g. :

Effect of non-pharmaceutical interventions to contain COVID-19 in China | Nature
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2020.0822
Estimating the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on the number of new infections with COVID-19 during the first epidemic wave

Let the backtracking commence.

 

[hedrick]

Sure. 600,000+ dead Americans, the worst death rate from COVID of any developed nation.

According to Worldometer, we're 14th. Several of those above us are European. In particular, Italy and the UK.

 

[hedrick]

Trump suggested that injecting or consuming disinfectants could be curative.

Not directly. He sort of implied it, and some people took him literally.

 

[KCfromNC]

Exactly right.

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​

This looks like a source which lands at the very bottom of your food pyramid of research quality. One might wonder why you'd expect your audience to bother with it after also claiming that sources like these are the worst possible way to get information about scientific topics.

 

[whatbogsends]

Oh my! You don't know how to face palm or check sources.

You also have the mistaken belief that science is written in stone. It is not. When the knowledge that we have about this virus changed so did Fauci's recommendations. He did always follow the science. He was without ego, unlike the man that you almost certainly supported. You may not understand the sciences which would explain your errors.

Wrong. Fauci admitted in a New York Times interview that the numbers he gave for herd immunity didn't change due to the science of herd immunity changing, rather he changed the numbers presented based on polling in the US on vaccine receptiveness and what he thought would get more people to take the vaccine.

In the pandemic’s early days, Dr. Fauci tended to cite the same 60 to 70 percent estimate that most experts did. About a month ago, he began saying “70, 75 percent” in television interviews. And last week, in an interview with CNBC News, he said “75, 80, 85 percent” and “75 to 80-plus percent.”

In a telephone interview the next day, Dr. Fauci acknowledged that he had slowly but deliberately been moving the goal posts. He is doing so, he said, partly based on new science, and partly on his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks.

Hard as it may be to hear, he said, he believes that it may take close to 90 percent immunity to bring the virus to a halt — almost as much as is needed to stop a measles outbreak.
...
Now that some polls are showing that many more Americans are ready, even eager, for vaccines, he said he felt he could deliver the tough message that the return to normal might take longer than anticipated.

“When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent,” Dr. Fauci said. “Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, ‘I can nudge this up a bit,’ so I went to 80, 85.”

How much herd immunity is enough?

Fauci expressly said to the NYT that he deliberately moved the goalposts of what vaccine threshold was needed for herd immunity.

 

[whatbogsends]

It is clear that you did not understand the refutation that I provided or else you did not read it. I linked and quoted the email that you misinterpreted at best.

Then you should have understood that when Fauci changed his claims it was because the science behind them changed and that there was no arrogance in his statement.

Wow! You are the king of cherry picking. That is not a proper debating technique. You should have read the part above:

"Since the start of the pandemic, the figure that many epidemiologists have offered has been 60 to 70 percent. That range is still cited by the World Health Organization and is often repeated during discussions of the future course of the disease."

Just as an FYI, the number can vary a lot depending upon the efficacy of the vaccine and the virulence of the disease. It is a bit on the optimistic side for Covid.

So let's see what else the article says:

"In a telephone interview the next day, Dr. Fauci acknowledged that he had slowly but deliberately been moving the goal posts. He is doing so, he said, partly based on new science, and partly on his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks.

• Dig deeper into the moment.

Special offer: Subscribe for $1 a week.

Hard as it may be to hear, he said, he believes that it may take close to 90 percent immunity to bring the virus to a halt — almost as much as is needed to stop a measles outbreak."

Oopsy! It looks like you were caught with your pants down. Again. The article shows that Fauci was following the science.



Where? No it looks like you are making up nonsense. Your own article refutes you.



Wow! Another epic failure. Trump was an arrogant yutz. He still is. It does not matter if you supported him or not. The point is that I can tell that you almost certainly did. You make his mistakes. So you did not vote for Trump? Okay, I hope that is the case, but you sound like a chip off the old block quite often.



Nope, sorry, I am not guilty of your errors.

Your entire summary of the NYT interview with Fauci isn't just cherry picking, it's dishonesty dressed up as cherry picking. He specifically said that he changed what he said based on what he thought people were ready to hear.

In a telephone interview the next day, Dr. Fauci acknowledged that he had slowly but deliberately been moving the goal posts. He is doing so, he said, partly based on new science, and partly on his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks.
...
“When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent,” Dr. Fauci said. “Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, ‘I can nudge this up a bit,’ so I went to 80, 85.”

 

[FireDragon76]

According to Worldometer, we're 14th. Several of those above us are European. In particular, Italy and the UK.

Probably because they have older populations than the US.

Not directly. He sort of implied it, and some people took him literally.

It was irresponsible and goofy to even talk about that. It's the stuff an 8 year old kid would suggest off-hand

 

[RDKirk]

Hyperbole aside, in an emerging pandemic with rapidly changing variables, it's understandable why guidance and recommendations do change. People act like health professionals should have perfect information, but that's just not how things work in the real world.

Nothing has changed from my view of the situation 'way back in February 2020. There were certain things I realized then that are still true now.

1. Everyone would need to wear effective masks in order to function within the contagion. I had a few N-95 masks already available because I'm an avid DIY-er, but I immediately found sources of KN-95 masks and even laid in a supply of HEPA filter material in case we'd wind up making our own masks (I did say that I DIY).

2. I understood from the beginning that transmission mitigation techniques (quarantine, social distancing, masking, hand hygiene) would be necessary until an effective and safe vaccine (and I based "effective and safe" on bars set by past vaccine development) was developed at least 80% of the population was vaccinated. In February 2020, I expected that not to happen until early 2022. Actually, I expected the vaccine not to be available until 3rd or 4th quarter of 2021, and that people would willingly accept the vaccine so that the vaccination program would take six months. I didn't expect the vaccine to be developed as fast and its acceptance to be so slow. But all in all, we are about where I expected us to be at this point, but for much stupider reasons.

3. I understood from the beginning that "herd immunity" depended on vaccination...I said more than a year ago, "humanity has never died its way to herd immunity to any disease." I also understood that no vaccine is 100% safe for 100% of people, nor is it effective 100% of the time against 100% of the virus, and that over time mutations would occur requiring updated vaccinations. This was all easily available information all along.

There are several things the government did wrong, a couple of them Fauci himself did wrong:

1. The government depended on stockpiles rather than industry. This is actually an unintended consequences of the military-industrial complex. Prior to WWII, the concept was to set the stockpile for the period of time it would take American industry to convert to wartime production...from producing automobile to producing tanks. The advantage to that was flexibility...the Army would not be facing a new war with a great stockpile of the last war's weapons. It also has the advantage of not actually spending money beforehand.

But the "stockpile mentality"--an outgrowth of the military-industrial complex--was the concept of deciding beforehand what the new war would look like and attepting to stockpile for it. The problem is that nobody's predictions are that accurate. The new war is never what you predict it to be, and nobody ever wants to spend enough money on a stockpile.

So what happened in this case is that the government went cheap on the stockpile of PPE. In order to go cheap and still claim to have met the requirement, they simply predicted a situation where any outbreak would be something we already had a vaccine for and would outbreak in only a very isolated fashion. (That was, of course, the ultimate of stupidity considering that a deliberate strategic biological attack was always a real possibility.) So the nation ended up with a paltry stockpile and no concept of industry ramping up to meet a new need.

By "ramp up" I'm talking about whole segments of industry converting from one product to another, building new production spaces, et cetera, and government having a plan to make that happen efficiently. For instance, the government would have determined what kinds of industries would participate (such as all the various filter manufacturers), how 3M's patent on N-95 filters would be licensed to new alternative manufacturers, how quickly the alternative manufacturers would go into production, et cetera. The government has done this kind of thing before.

Fauci made a critical error in judgment in denying that masking was necessary for everyone (I never believed that for a moment--I've had biological warfare training). Trying to solve the PPE shortfall was not his call. He should have told the truth and given that problem to government and industry to solve. Instead, by denying the need for masks, he also denied any reason for industry ramp up to meet it, or for government to authorize, encourage, or plan for it.

He also played far too coy with the extent of the shut-down that was needed. Fauci led the nation to believe that the goal was to "flatten the curve," and we would all be in the clear. That was never true, "flatten the curve" was only a "first down," not a goal. He kept saying, "...another two weeks." Again, he was trying to solve the medical community's problem rather than telling the whole truth and letting other elements of the government solve the problem. The social shutdown should have only been as long as necessary for industry to ramp up PPE production so that business could function again within the contagion. But he had already killed the rationale for an industry ramp up, and he muddied the water for the change of advice that was clearly inevitable.

Fauci knew all the time the same thing I knew, or that anyone with biological warfare training would know: Operation cannot shut down for as long as it would take to implement vaccination. Ultimately, Fauci did not give national decisionmakers the full and complete information they needed to have.