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

whatbogsends · Jul 29, 2021

Strathos said:
We are actually doing really well with our vaccines and responses, considering this is a brand new virus that we know practically nothing about.

The people ruining it are those that refuse to take medical recommendations seriously.

If everyone had practiced masking and social distancing, and taken the vaccine when it was available for their age group, the pandemic would be over by now, and the majority of these new variants wouldn't exist.

But some people just refuse to follow common sense.

The majority of new variants came from areas where there is a lot of poverty and vaccine availability is almost non-existent. Delta came about in December, before the vaccine rollout even happened in the US.

The narrative painted by the ultra-pro vaccine crowd is disconnected from reality.

probinson · Jul 29, 2021

pitabread said:
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.

Of course you are. Why in the world would we actually want to discuss things that might actually be beneficial when we can make this all about me?

pitabread said:
How are you determining quality of evidence with respect to studies?

You've rudely and condescendingly dismissed my explanations as "handwaving".

pitabread said:
What is your background / area of expertise that allows you to make these assessments?

You don't have to have a PhD to realize that 2 hairdressers does not a compelling study make.

One of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from authority." (Scientists, being primates, and thus given to dominance hierarchies, of course do not always follow this commandment.) Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else. This independence of science, its occasional unwillingness to accept conventional wisdom, makes it dangerous to doctrines less self critical, or with pretensions of certitude.”

-Carl Sagan

pitabread · Jul 29, 2021

probinson said:
You've rudely and condescendingly dismissed my explanations as "handwaving".

When all you do is repeat the phrase "low quality evidence", that just looks like handwaving. Can you explain how you are evaluating and determining what is or isn't "low quality evidence"?

What is your background, experience, criteria that allows you to make these assessments?

You don't have to have a PhD to realize that 2 hairdressers does not a compelling study make.

One of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from authority." (Scientists, being primates, and thus given to dominance hierarchies, of course do not always follow this commandment.) Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else. This independence of science, its occasional unwillingness to accept conventional wisdom, makes it dangerous to doctrines less self critical, or with pretensions of certitude.”

-Carl Sagan

This is just another handwave.

If you think that study is inadequate, explain why. Explain what would make a better study. Provide evidence to support this.

And if you're going to post other articles and claim they are authoritative, what is the basis for that? What makes that article you posted more authoritative or valid than the studies in question?

probinson · Jul 29, 2021

pitabread said:
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.

You're in denial if you think ego isn't playing a major role in all of this. Heck, Dr. Fauci famously said, "Attacks on me, quite frankly, are attacks on science", as if Dr. Fauci is the personification of unassailable science.

pitabread said:
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.

If there were a modicum of humility in these recommendations, I would agree. But there is nothing but arrogance and self-assuredness in the proclamations made by public health. They are absolutely certain they are correct, and you are a "science-denier" if you disagree with them. Until they're not correct any more, and then, whoops! Our bad. Science evolves, don't you know, so sorry for censoring your thoughts last week that are now accepted science this week. Witness the lab-leak hypothesis. There is no greater example in recent memory of The Science™ being so sure of itself... until it was't.

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

Well that's encouraging to hear, because the CDC couldn't care less. As long as you have something over your nose and mouth, they're happy that you've "complied" with the guidance. It doesn't really matter if the mask is effective or not. Slap a cloth over your face and you're good to go.

pitabread said:
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.

That's why the CDC should stick to providing guidance instead of trying to institute mandates. The masking policy HAS been explicitly enforced across the board. And expanded them with no evidence.

Is there any evidence whatsoever that wearing a cloth mask while outside is beneficial. Nope. No one even tried to figure out if that was beneficial. Yet public health authorities the world over advised everyone to wear masks indoors, outdoors, while you're having sex... and these overzealous, utterly ridiculous "recommendations" that clearly had no evidentiary basis were the beginning of the end of the trust in public health.

probinson · Jul 29, 2021

pitabread said:
And if you're going to post other articles and claim they are authoritative, what is the basis for that? What makes that article you posted more authoritative or valid than the studies in question?

Do you disagree with the main premise of the article, that we should have done RCTs to determine the efficacy of mitigation measures?

probinson · Jul 29, 2021

whatbogsends said:
The narrative painted by the ultra-pro vaccine crowd is disconnected from reality.

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

Subduction Zone · Jul 29, 2021

probinson said:
You're in denial if you think ego isn't playing a major role in all of this. Heck, Dr. Fauci famously said, "Attacks on me, quite frankly, are attacks on science", as if Dr. Fauci is the personification of unassailable science.

If there were a modicum of humility in these recommendations, I would agree. But there is nothing but arrogance and self-assuredness in the proclamations made by public health. They are absolutely certain they are correct, and you are a "science-denier" if you disagree with them. Until they're not correct any more, and then, whoops! Our bad. Science evolves, don't you know, so sorry for censoring your thoughts last week that are now accepted science this week. Witness the lab-leak hypothesis. There is no greater example in recent memory of The Science™ being so sure of itself... until it was't.

Well that's encouraging to hear, because the CDC couldn't care less. As long as you have something over your nose and mouth, they're happy that you've "complied" with the guidance. It doesn't really matter if the mask is effective or not. Slap a cloth over your face and you're good to go.

That's why the CDC should stick to providing guidance instead of trying to institute mandates. The masking policy HAS been explicitly enforced across the board. And expanded them with no evidence.

Is there any evidence whatsoever that wearing a cloth mask while outside is beneficial. Nope. No one even tried to figure out if that was beneficial. Yet public health authorities the world over advised everyone to wear masks indoors, outdoors, while you're having sex... and these overzealous, utterly ridiculous "recommendations" that clearly had no evidentiary basis were the beginning of the end of the trust in public health.

Quotes out of context and without sources are very often quote mines. Why not post less and support your claims better? As the saying goes, sometimes less is more. When you quote someone as you quoted Fauci it only looks as if you may be being dishonest to people that understand the strick of quote mining.

probinson · Jul 29, 2021

Subduction Zone said:
Why not post less and support your claims better?

Are you serious? I've posted links, charts and graphs in almost every post I've made. "My claims" in this thread most often are not my own, but those of medical journals, doctors and scientists.

Subduction Zone said:
When you quote someone as you quoted Fauci it only looks as if you may be being dishonest to people that understand the strick of quote mining.

Here you go;

Fauci: Attacks on me are really also 'attacks on science'

There's no "quote mining" here. Just an arrogant Dr. Fauci pretending like he's the unassailable personification of science.

Subduction Zone · Jul 29, 2021

probinson said:
Are you serious? I've posted links, charts and graphs in almost every post I've made. "My claims" in this thread most often are not my own, but those of medical journals, doctors and scientists.

Here you go;

Fauci: Attacks on me are really also 'attacks on science'

There's no "quote mining" here. Just an arrogant Dr. Fauci pretending like he's the unassailable personification of science.

Did you read that article? If you did you would see that it was a quote mine. We do not even have the full statement, but this is from the article and gives it some context:

""It's very dangerous, Chuck, because a lot of what you're seeing as attacks on me quite frankly are attacks on science, because all of the things that I have spoken about consistently from the very beginning, have been fundamentally based on science,""

There is no arrogance there. He was being factual. Fauci always made statements based upon what was known at that time. Early one when people scrambled for mask it was actually a threat to those at greatest risk. At the time there were not enough to go around medical professionals needed them more than anyone else. Not just to protect themselves, but even more important to protect others from them if they got the virus. When mask production ramped up then it would be helpful for everyone to have them. But it would be almost worthless for only a handful of people that ordered masks first in preventing the virus from spreading.

You may not have quote mined, but you relied on one. In other words you were fooled by a bit of dishonest reporting.

busrider · Jul 29, 2021

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

It is a symptom of anti-education

probinson · Jul 29, 2021

Subduction Zone said:
""It's very dangerous, Chuck, because a lot of what you're seeing as attacks on me quite frankly are attacks on science, because all of the things that I have spoken about consistently from the very beginning, have been fundamentally based on science,""

There is no arrogance there.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Subduction Zone said:
He was being factual. Fauci always made statements based upon what was known at that time. Early one when people scrambled for mask it was actually a threat to those at greatest risk. At the time there were not enough to go around medical professionals needed them more than anyone else. Not just to protect themselves, but even more important to protect others from them if they got the virus. When mask production ramped up then it would be helpful for everyone to have them. But it would be almost worthless for only a handful of people that ordered masks first in preventing the virus from spreading.

That's a bit of historical revisionism (emphasis added);

In March 2020, as the pandemic began, Anthony Fauci, the chief medical adviser to the president of the United States, explained in a 60 Minutes interview that he felt community use of masks was unnecessary. A few months later, he argued that his statements were not meant to imply that he felt the data to justify the use of cloth masks was insufficient. Rather, he said, had he endorsed mask wearing (of any kind), mass panic would ensue and lead to a surgical and N95 mask shortage among health care workers, who needed the masks more. Yet, emails from a Freedom of Information Act request revealed that Fauci privately gave the same advice—against mask use—suggesting it was not merely his outward stance to the broader public.

Although some have claimed that the evidence changed substantively in the early weeks of March, our assessment of the literature does not concur. We believe the evidence at the time of Fauci’s 60 Minutes interview was largely similar to that in April 2020. Thus, there are two ways to consider Fauci’s statement. One possibility is, as he says, that his initial statement was dishonest but motivated to avoid a run on masks needed by health care workers. The other is that he believed his initial statements were accurate, and he subsequently decided to advocate for cloth masks to divert attention from surgical or N95 masks, or to provide a sense of hope and control to a fearful and anxious public.

Additional evidence suggests that the second interpretation may be more accurate. In a lengthy commentary from July 2020, COVID expert Michael Osterholm wrote in detail about the continued scientific uncertainty regarding masks—even as he expressed support for their widespread public use as one measure among many. But Fauci’s reversal, which came at a time of political polarization, contributed to the evolution of masks from a basic, precautionary mitigation strategy to a badge of political allegiance. President Donald Trump was reluctant to wear a mask and justified his behavior by referring to Fauci’s comments from the 60 Minutesinterview. The controversy continued into the presidential debates, with Trump mocking Joe Biden for donning the “biggest mask” he’d ever seen.

One thing is beyond a doubt, however: One of those two statements did not accurately reflect the evidence as Fauci saw it. Such high-profile mixed messages in a short time frame, without substantive new data to justify the change, generated confusion and a backlash from politicians, other experts, and the general public.

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

You can also read how Dr. Fauci said, in his own words, that he "nudged" the numbers for herd immunity, not based on science, but based on polls of Americans to try to encourage vaccine uptake. That's not "following the science".

Subduction Zone · Jul 29, 2021

probinson said:
We'll have to agree to disagree.

That's a bit of historical revisionism (emphasis added);

In March 2020, as the pandemic began, Anthony Fauci, the chief medical adviser to the president of the United States, explained in a 60 Minutes interview that he felt community use of masks was unnecessary. A few months later, he argued that his statements were not meant to imply that he felt the data to justify the use of cloth masks was insufficient. Rather, he said, had he endorsed mask wearing (of any kind), mass panic would ensue and lead to a surgical and N95 mask shortage among health care workers, who needed the masks more. Yet, emails from a Freedom of Information Act request revealed that Fauci privately gave the same advice—against mask use—suggesting it was not merely his outward stance to the broader public.

Although some have claimed that the evidence changed substantively in the early weeks of March, our assessment of the literature does not concur. We believe the evidence at the time of Fauci’s 60 Minutes interview was largely similar to that in April 2020. Thus, there are two ways to consider Fauci’s statement. One possibility is, as he says, that his initial statement was dishonest but motivated to avoid a run on masks needed by health care workers. The other is that he believed his initial statements were accurate, and he subsequently decided to advocate for cloth masks to divert attention from surgical or N95 masks, or to provide a sense of hope and control to a fearful and anxious public.

Additional evidence suggests that the second interpretation may be more accurate. In a lengthy commentary from July 2020, COVID expert Michael Osterholm wrote in detail about the continued scientific uncertainty regarding masks—even as he expressed support for their widespread public use as one measure among many. But Fauci’s reversal, which came at a time of political polarization, contributed to the evolution of masks from a basic, precautionary mitigation strategy to a badge of political allegiance. President Donald Trump was reluctant to wear a mask and justified his behavior by referring to Fauci’s comments from the 60 Minutesinterview. The controversy continued into the presidential debates, with Trump mocking Joe Biden for donning the “biggest mask” he’d ever seen.

One thing is beyond a doubt, however: One of those two statements did not accurately reflect the evidence as Fauci saw it. Such high-profile mixed messages in a short time frame, without substantive new data to justify the change, generated confusion and a backlash from politicians, other experts, and the general public.

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

You can also read how Dr. Fauci said, in his own words, that he "nudged" the numbers for herd immunity, not based on science, but based on polls of Americans to try to encourage vaccine uptake. That's not "following the science".

You have to check your sources a little better. What he said back at the start was not that different from what I claimed. He had one error in his email:

“Masks are really for infected people to prevent them from spreading infection to people who are not infected rather than protecting uninfected people from acquiring infection,” Fauci wrote back in a Feb. 5 message. “The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through the material.”

Fact check: Missing context in claim about mask emails, Fauci

And his error was based upon a lack of knowledge of how the virus was transmitted. He was right that the virus is small enough to get through a mask. He was wrong about how it was transmitted. The virus is likely not transmitted as a naked virus, but rather in water droplets from sneezing, yelling, singing, or even talking. He was right about the dangers of a mask shortage. My first mask order from Amazon mysteriously disappeared. It was never delivered, even though they had an "out for delivery" notice. And I was never billed for it. That was when they were first recommending them and after the supply was guaranteed for medical personnel.

And please note, you are of course wrong about arrogance from Fauci, and that is demonstrable. Unlike Trump, who was the epitome of arrogance, when the science behind Covid19 changed, Fauci's advice changed. He was following the science. What would you rather have him do? Suggest drinking Clorox and putting a flashlight up an uncomfortable orifice as Trump seemed to think was a good idea? And let's not forget abusing malaria medicine. There is a reason that one does not abuse existing medicine that has a clear need for it.

probinson · Jul 29, 2021

Subduction Zone said:
You have to check your sources a little better.

I find this statement amusing. The article I linked was written by two doctors and well sourced. But sure, let's go to USA Today's fact-checkers for the gospel truth. Just last week, I posted something on another forum from the BMJ and I was told they would believe it when they saw it in the New York Times or Washington Post. :doh:

The bottom line is, Dr. Fauci's recommendations, one way or the other at some point, were not based on science. They were a "noble lie" as explained in the article linked.

Subduction Zone said:
And his error was based upon a lack of knowledge of how the virus was transmitted. He was right that the virus is small enough to get through a mask. He was wrong about how it was transmitted. The virus is likely not transmitted as a naked virus, but rather in water droplets from sneezing, yelling, singing, or even talking.

This is outdated info. We have known since almost the beginning of the pandemic that the virus is transmitted through aerosols, and not just "droplets".

Subduction Zone said:
He was right about the dangers of a mask shortage.

Maybe so, but if he knew masks were beneficial and instead said that people didn't need them because he was trying to prevent a shortage, that's still a "noble lie".

Subduction Zone said:
And please note, you are of course wrong about arrogance from Fauci, and that is demonstrable.

It is your opinion that Fauci is not arrogant. It is my opinion that he is. There is noting "demonstrable" about either of those views.

Subduction Zone said:
Unlike Trump, who was the epitome of arrogance, when the science behind Covid19 changed, Fauci's advice changed. He was following the science

No doubt Trump was (is) an arrogant yutz. But when Dr. Fauci admits that he "nudged" numbers on herd immunity based on what polls told him, please don't try to pretend that is a demonstrable following of the science.

FireDragon76 · Jul 29, 2021

probinson said:
You're in denial if you think ego isn't playing a major role in all of this. Heck, Dr. Fauci famously said, "Attacks on me, quite frankly, are attacks on science", as if Dr. Fauci is the personification of unassailable science.

If there were a modicum of humility in these recommendations, I would agree. But there is nothing but arrogance and self-assuredness in the proclamations made by public health. They are absolutely certain they are correct, and you are a "science-denier" if you disagree with them. Until they're not correct any more, and then, whoops! Our bad. Science evolves, don't you know, so sorry for censoring your thoughts last week that are now accepted science this week. Witness the lab-leak hypothesis. There is no greater example in recent memory of The Science™ being so sure of itself... until it was't.

Well that's encouraging to hear, because the CDC couldn't care less. As long as you have something over your nose and mouth, they're happy that you've "complied" with the guidance. It doesn't really matter if the mask is effective or not. Slap a cloth over your face and you're good to go.

That's why the CDC should stick to providing guidance instead of trying to institute mandates. The masking policy HAS been explicitly enforced across the board. And expanded them with no evidence.

Is there any evidence whatsoever that wearing a cloth mask while outside is beneficial. Nope. No one even tried to figure out if that was beneficial. Yet public health authorities the world over advised everyone to wear masks indoors, outdoors, while you're having sex... and these overzealous, utterly ridiculous "recommendations" that clearly had no evidentiary basis were the beginning of the end of the trust in public health.

This is Exhibit A of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action, and generalized scientific illiteracy.

probinson · Jul 29, 2021

FireDragon76 said:
This is Exhibit A of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action, and generalized scientific illiteracy.

Ad hominem is unfortunate, but not unexpected.

Subduction Zone · Jul 29, 2021

probinson said:
I find this statement amusing. The article I linked was written by two doctors and well sourced. But sure, let's go to USA Today's fact-checkers for the gospel truth. Just last week, I posted something on another forum from the BMJ and I was told they would believe it when they saw it in the New York Times or Washington Post.

The bottom line is, Dr. Fauci's recommendations, one way or the other at some point, were not based on science. They were a "noble lie" as explained in the article linked.

This is outdated info. We have known since almost the beginning of the pandemic that the virus is transmitted through aerosols, and not just "droplets".

Maybe so, but if he knew masks were beneficial and instead said that people didn't need them because he was trying to prevent a shortage, that's still a "noble lie".

It is your opinion that Fauci is not arrogant. It is my opinion that he is. There is noting "demonstrable" about either of those views.

No doubt Trump was (is) an arrogant yutz. But when Dr. Fauci admits that he "nudged" numbers on herd immunity based on what polls told him, please don't try to pretend that is a demonstrable following of the science.

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.

Subduction Zone · Jul 29, 2021

probinson said:
Ad hominem is unfortunate, but not unexpected.

And you do not understand what an ad hominem is either.

Strathos · Jul 29, 2021

probinson said:
In case you've forgotten, the "Delta" variant was actually the "India" variant before it became politically incorrect to name variants after the location of their origin. Why? Because it originated in India, where vaccination percentage is extremely low not primarily because of vaccine hesitancy, but because of vaccine availability.

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.

Are you saying that the government and people of India couldn't have possibly handled the situation better? Vaccine hesistancy is just as common over there as it is in the US, if not more so.

probinson · Jul 29, 2021

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

Do you? What specifically in my source do you think needs to be checked?

Subduction Zone said:
You also have the mistaken belief that science is written in stone. It is not.

No, I don't have that mistaken belief at all. I know science evolves. That doesn't change the fact that that statement has been twisted and yanked around mercilessly for 18 months to justify non-evidence based policies.

Subduction Zone said:
He did always follow the science.

Nope.

Here's Dr. Fauci in his own words;l

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?

Notice that Dr. Fauci isn't changing his recommendations based on science here. He changed them, in his own words, based on "polls" and "newer surveys". Explain to me how you think that is "following the science".

Subduction Zone said:
He was without ego,

Right. That's why he equated himself with infallible science. No ego there!

Subduction Zone said:
unlike the man that you almost certainly supported.

How remarkably irrelevant, but telling.

Why would I call Donald Trump an "arrogant yutz" if I supported him? Not that it matters at all in this discussion (other than providing yet another example of how pandemic policy and discussions are nakedly political in nature), but I have never been a Trump supporter.

Subduction Zone said:
You may not understand the sciences which would explain your errors.

Right back atcha.

Strathos · Jul 29, 2021

Aldebaran said:
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.
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.

One thing you need to understand about us Biden voters is that we don't worship the man like voters for a certain other candidate seem to. We don't think he's omniscient and that anything he says is automatically right just because he said it. He was working with the information he had at the time, and that information changed. That's a thing that happens, especially when dealing with a new and rapidly evolving virus like this. If Biden had said back in January that the Chiefs would win the Super Bowl, we'd realize he was wrong when it didn't happen like that. Whereas if Trump had said it, a bunch of his supporters would have probably stormed the NFL headquarters and tried to overthrow the result, insisting that the game was rigged.

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

Senior Veteran

Legend

Well-Known Member

Legend

Legend

Legend

Regular Member

Legend

Regular Member

Active Member

Legend

Regular Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

Legend

Regular Member

Regular Member

No one important

Legend

No one important

Similar threads