Before Thursday, my Twitter feed was full of people complaining that the CDC was being too conservative about masks and its advice was too complicated. Today, my timeline is full of people complaining that the CDC has moved too fast and is providing advice that doesn't allow any exceptions.
Moral of the story: Everybody hates the CDC. If you were the public face of a pandemic, they'd probably hate you, too.
FRIDAY UPDATE: Oh ffs.
Another legacy of the Carter-Mondale interregnum.
I read that as Carter-Mondal InstaGram and was rather confused...
Where is the Block button for this drooling moron, Kevin?
Append a snark tag to anything Clipart says.
Hate is such a strong word.
Though I would have preferred a slightly more nuanced announcement. It's ok for vaccinated people to meet with other vaccinated people without masks, indoors or out, but we expected businesses to keep mask mandates for a while longer since less than 50% of the population has been vaccinated. Local authorities can relax rules, especially in areas where cases have dropped and vaccination rates are high.
This is really much too facile. There’s a difference between being too conservative about things like wearing masks outdoors and essentially saying that nobody needs to wear a mask indoors or outdoors—which is the ultimate end point of the CDC’s current guidance in a system in which vaccine passports are forbidden. Without the vaccine passports you can’t tell a vaccinated person from a Republican.
So in places like Florida, Michigan, and South Dakota the virus will have a forever home where it can spread an mutate. And vaccinated people will still need to be very careful as the prevalence of the virus increases and people who might be infected circulate among us and we find out whether the vaccine has limitations.
Bill Maher was fully vaccinated. And dozens of fully vaccinated Americans have died of covid. It's not "whether" the vaccines are limited but how significant are those limitations. I think the CDC was clearly trying to provide the public with a rationale/incentive to get jabbed. It might be justifiable if it works (ie, provides the impetus to get us over the hump in terms of needed vaccine levels). But I doubt that's in the cards.
But yeah, vaccine passports would be good.
Even at best, they’re said to be 95% effective. So basically, yes, a vaccinated person is one bad beat away from getting infected. In a room or an airplane with only vaccinated people, you’re as safe as can be. But if you’re around people who aren’t vaccinated and aren’t wearing masks, I think you’re very much at risk.
That’s the whole point of vaccine passports and it’s why the CDC’s new guidelines might be scientifically justified but practically insane.
Even at best, they’re said to be 95% effective. So basically, yes, a vaccinated person is one bad beat away from getting infected.
It looks like you're misunderstanding what the 95% number means. It doesn't mean you have a 5% chance of getting the disease, it means the vaccine reduces the number of possible cases by 95%. In the Pfizer study, they had 21K people vaccinated, against 21K unvaccinated. There were 162 covid cases in the unvaccinated, against eight (8!) in the vaccinated group. So of the 170 total covid cases, the vaccinated people made up only 5% (ie, a 95% efficacy rate).
But in terms of the overall number, it's 8/21,000 people, or an infection rate in the vaccinated people of about 0.04%.
I’m not sure what point you’re making. 0.04% of 20K is a very small number. But 0.04% of the US or world population is an immense number. And if we allow the virus to run rampant through the country until a variant finally emerges that is able to defeat the vaccines, we’ll be right back where we were at the very beginning.
The other point I would make is that regardless of how you would choose to measure the effectiveness of the vaccine, I’m still one bad beat away from getting Covid-19. If we were all pulling together and doing the best we can as a society, I’d say that’s life.
But the difficulty with the CDC’s new guidance is that we’re creating a situation in which the virus those of us who wore masks and got vaccinated will be asked to intermingle with people who are neither vaccinated nor masked. However you want to calculate it, prevalence and duration of close contact has to increase the risk of getting Covid-19 and it does so needlessly in order to accommodate a bunch of Trumpkins. That’s unacceptable to me.
If we had a well run system of vaccine passports, that would be one thing but to simply abandon all making and public health measures and run everything wide open is an unnecessary risk that we shouldn’t be expect to assume simply to placate a bunch of assholes.
I’m still one bad beat away from getting Covid-19.
Perhaps, but at that risk level, you're one bad beat from having a lot of nasty things happen to you and you're not obsessing over them. Well, maybe you are. Do you wear lightning rods when you go out? Shark repellent when you go in the ocean?
owever you want to calculate it, prevalence and duration of close contact has to increase the risk of getting Covid-19 and it does so needlessly in order to accommodate a bunch of Trumpkins. That’s unacceptable to me.
In absolute terms, the change in risk level is infinitesimal because the risk itself is infinitesimal in both cases. But your mention of "Trumpkins" pretty much confirms my point: it's about tribal signaling rather than the science.
Resenting being endangered by sociopaths is not tribal signaling, nor is calling the sociopaths unkind names.
One could speak respectfully of Trump voters whose refusal to get vaccinated is politically motivated, rather than calling them "Trumpkins" -- but is respect warranted?
It isn't about the risk being huge; it's about it being unnecessary, and willfully inflicted. You can't get vaccinated because you have a wonky immune system? I feel bad for you. You won't get vaccinated in order to make the point that you are an immature jerk and proud of it? Buzz off.
Dozen of vaccinated people have died of covid? I'd like to see a pointer to some data on this because last I check, the "breakthrough cases" were much milder and no one had died from such case, even with lower efficacy vaccines such as J&J or AZ.
This article in the Boston Globe can get you started.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/04/21/nation/its-rare-some-fully-vaccinated-people-are-catching-covid-19/
As of the middle of April, 75 fully vaccinated Americans had died -- yes -- DIED -- of covid19. That's still an almost miraculously good ratio, mind you (it's one in a million, as approximately 75 million Americans had been fully vaccinated by then), but, no vaccine is 100% effective.
And needless to say the statistic is more than three weeks old, so the number is surely a good deal higher than 75 at this point. Also, it's almost certainly the case that there have been many hundreds (thousands?) of symptomatic covid cases among the vaccinated given 75 known fatalities. (And needless to say symptomatic covid cases can cause long term health issues).
Also, to further clarify, I don't mean to denigrate the impressive scientific achievement here. My back-of-the envelope calculations suggestions these vaccines have reduced the lethality of covid19 by a factor of perhaps five thousand or more. That's an incredible triumph! They simply haven't eliminated covid deaths (or serious symptoms) altogether, is all.
Good article in the Globe. Thanks.
Bill Maher has no symptoms. Thus, it seems the vaccine worked in his case. You say "dozens" of "fully vaccinated" Americans have died. How many unvaccinated people have died? Well, at least 3 million in the world, 600,000 in the US, of covid. 3 million vs your "dozens". I know which choice I'd make...
Yes, the obviously intelligent move is to get vaccinated. But it's also worth noting that being vaccinated makes you a lot safer but doesn't make you bulletproof. There is some indication that "breakthrough" infections can be caused by prevalence and prolonged contact with infected people.
It isn't clear that a vaccinated person could live risk free for prolonged periods amid a sea of unvaccinated, unmasked people. So, unquestionably, the right choice for the individual is to be vaccinated but it's also necessary to sharply reduce the prevalence of the virus and encourage others to become vaccinated.
> But it's also worth noting that being vaccinated makes you a lot safer but doesn't make you bulletproof.
As noted by others, it reduces the risk to a point so low that you should be MUCH more worried about driving your car or eating food that you did not prepare (or grow) yourself.
Very few risks ever go to zero, so citing a 0.04% chance of infection is about as good as it gets.
That’s a good point. And I don’t entirely disagree with you. But if you look at the likely outcome of a situation in which the mask mandates are gone but there’s also no way to separate the vaccinated from the unvaccinated, those outcomes you cite might no longer be meaningful.
The issue is prevalence and duration/intensity of contacts with unvaccinated, unmasked people. More infections means greater prevalence and greater risk of variants that might defeat the vaccines.
Similarly, are the odds the same if a vaccinated person is likely to be marinating in the virus? Without a way to exclude unvaccinated people from dangerous places (particularly indoors), we’re making a huge gamble that breakthrough infections won’t begin to climb significantly or perhaps even geometrically. If we had vaccine passports, the CDC’s action would be a good idea and a responsible advance on getting rid of masks. But as it stands now, it’s just a dangerous capitulation to the Trumpkins.
Well, Maher's show was put on hiatus, so apparently the vaccine in his case didn't work well enough for health professionals to be confident he wasn't contagious. (Also, just to pick a nit: many infected people -- my sense is the majority -- are asymptomatic; so it's hard to be sure the vaccine really "worked" in Maher's case or else simply "delivered the result" he would have gotten anyway).
Again, not trying to denigrate the miraculous scientific achievement here. These rapidly-designed vaccines are a marvel, and nearly everyone who receives one will be protected. But "nearly" isn't the same as "all."
The facts that you can have COVID-19 and be infectious without symptoms is really the most important thing about this virus. He could’ve had it at the time he got vaccinated or anytime before the vaccine really became effect. Or it could be a breakthrough infection.
This only underscores my concern that the CDC has essentially abolished the mask mandates and limitations on indoor activities for everyone and not just for vaccinated people. With vaccine passports, this would have been a welcome reward to those who have been vaccinated and a powerful incentive for those who haven’t. This is potentially a huge mistake.
That was my thought, doing it that abruptly is going to make the lunatics feel validated, and then at any point in the future when another variant breaks out and the CDC changes it's position again they're only going to see that as a license to freak out even more.
I'm for very large Scarlet Letters, only not ones with an "A". Let's make people who are unvaccinated wear large Red letters with "U" for "Unvaccinated -- Stay Away!"
I'm for phone-based health passport apps.
I don't have a phone. You're telling me I have to buy one (and pay for service) in order to prove my fully vaccinated status?
I am going to continue to wear a mask.
Why?
In my vast experience I have found out that people lie. People lie a lot.
"Sure, I have been vaccinated. Cough, cough, sneeze sneeze..."
That’s an interesting question. As a practical matter, even an N95 masks offers the wearer minimal protection. Conversely, masks offer everyone else a lot of protection from you if you happen to be infected. It’s an asymmetrical relationship, like so much else about modern American life.
People wear masks out of consideration for the safety and well-being of others. Anti maskers are selfish and do not care about other people. It’s a conundrum.
Agree entirely with you, except for the conundrum part. I believe wearing only a mask provides some 17% protection for oneself whereas wearing a mask provides some 85% to 90% protection for others.
That's the conundrum, though. You are wearing a mask to protect people who don't want to be vaccinated and also do want to wear a mask. We are now reorganizing our society and (minimally) burdening ourself with the unpleasantness of mask wearing to accommodate those people.
Under the new CDC guidance, vaccinated people (who largely cannot become infected, do not spread the virus if infected, and suffer only relatively mild symptoms if they do become infected) are wearing masks because it’s impossible to distinguish vaccinated people from unvaccinated ones. Therefore, in the absence of vaccine passports, we’re now in a situation where an unvaccinated, possibly infected person can go into a store or a restaurant or travel on an airplane sans mask without being challenged.
I really wonder whether you should continue to wear a mask to save those ungrateful Trumpkin assholes.
Agree except the CDC guideline still calls for masking on airplanes and other forms of public transportation.
I’m very tired of our lives being guided by Right Wing whining.
I don't see how that's going to work in a world where every other venue is wide open and nobody's wearing masks. And, equally, if travel required vaccine passports, responsible people would not be wearing masks for 12 hours at a time.
I too am tired of our lives being guided by Right Wing whining but this capitulation to that whining by the CDC seems like a very bad and dangerous idea at a moment when we really seem to be turning a corner.
We need vaccine passports and we need to incentivize normal people to get vaccinated and focus less on placating the Trumpkins.
I think we need vaccine passports too. Unfortunately we keep on giving in to the whiners and as far as I can tell, vaccine passports are off the table. That’s why I’m not happy with the new CDC guidelines. I doubt anyone thinks the unvaccinated 50% of Republicans will follow them.
At this point I think herd immunity is off the table and we will be dealing with Covid for the rest of our lives. I have hopes the Pfizer treatment pill proves effective.
I am likely not saving the assholes themselves but I am saving those who mingle by choice or otherwise, with those assholes. By wearing a mask I am helping out our healthcare facilities as well as containing any mutations that occur within myself (even though I am well past both vaccinations).
That’s a fair point. But it’s also my objection to the CDC guidelines which seem to be extremely premature and ill advised.
I am going to wear mine gardening. Last year was the mildest allergy season of my adult life. I want to see what happens this year.
Probably a good idea. There were a lot of gardeners, painters, and hobbyists who already had KN95 masks for exactly the same practical reasons. Also, all the masks and sanitizing seems to have made this a mild flu season.
Why wouldn't a lot of people on the right hate the CDC when fomenting hate and division, of any kind possible, has been a major objective of Republicans? Anything to get people to take sides on other than economic grounds. Any remaining honest officials had to bow somewhat to Trump's nonsense to avoid the whole thing being taken over by wackos. Now it seems that Biden has made the decision to be "bipartisan" and move toward opening up, regardless of safety concerns. Even if the CDC and WHO were completely on top of the pandemic from a scientific point of view - which they have not been - they would be caught in the middle politically.
The moral of the story:
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometime you find
You get what you need.
Truly one of the more overrated bands of C 20
You see this as though Bruce Springsteen isn't real.
"If you were the public face of a pandemic, they'd probably hate you, too."
And yet, everyone loves Dr Fauci...
Once mask-wearing became as much a signifier of your politics as it did a practical thing, it was pretty inevitable that there would be a similar reaction from the left when not wearing masks became the policy, whatever the actual science.
That doesn’t seem to be an accurate representation of the objections which have actually been raised to the new CDC guidelines. The point being made is that, in the absence of vaccine passports, it’s impossible to tell who is vaccinated and who is not. Consequently, even if the scientific basis underlying the new guidelines is sound (as I believe it is), the likely result is the nationwide abandonment of mask mandates and the unrestricted access to indoor spaces of people who are neither masked nor vaccinated.
That doesn’t seem to be an accurate representation of the objections which have actually been raised to the new CDC guidelines
Seems like quite an accurate representation to me, thanks!
Consequently, even if the scientific basis underlying the new guidelines is sound (as I believe it is), the likely result is the nationwide abandonment of mask mandates and the unrestricted access to indoor spaces of people who are neither masked nor vaccinated
Maybe. And? If you're vaccinated (as almost all the people I see complaining are), the current science is pretty clear that you have almost no chance of getting COVID, would almost certainly get a mild case if that 'almost no chance' came through, and also have almost no chance of transmitting the virus to anyone else.
If unvaccinated people get it because they unmask, well, they're contributing to herd immunity in a whole different way.
"If unvaccinated people get it because they unmask, well, they're contributing to herd immunity in a whole different way."
Wish it wouldn't take so long.
I don’t see how you can say that you are accurately representing the views of liberals when you don’t cite any and neither do you point to any such views being expressed by the commenters here. What you’re doing is trying to make a false equivalence between liberals and masks versus conservatives and guns as fetish objects. Nobody wants to get rid of masks and return to normal more than me but I’m also not willing to abandon all public health measures until it’s safe(especially masking, which is demonstrated to be effective).
I am vaccinated and therefore have very little risk of getting Covid-19. But there are still a lot of people (including a lot of non-Trumpkins) who haven’t been vaccinated and are therefore greatly at risk from infected people who are not wearing masks. Since the only way to distinguish between vaccinated and non-vaccinated people would be with a vaccine passport, it seems to me that what liberals are objecting to is that in the absence of such vaccine passports, it is dangerous and irresponsible to effectively eliminate mask mandates.
My response to your (admittedly tempting) suggestion that we vaccinated people should let the rest of the country take it on the chin until enough corpses have piled up to achieve “herd immunity” is that liberals would not have told God that we are not our brothers keepers.
it seems to me that what liberals are objecting to is that in the absence of such vaccine passports, it is dangerous and irresponsible to effectively eliminate mask mandates.
Eh. I'll stick with my original evaluation, thanks.
liberals would not have told God that we are not our brothers keepers
I'm sure God is deeply impressed by how virtuous you are.
I have never doubted that you would do otherwise even though you cannot point to anyone treating masks as a fetish object equivalent to the way that conservatives have fetishized guns. Indeed, you are unable to do so even within the limited universe of this blog.
Yours is a peculiar but not unexpected response to the notion that we are all our brothers keepers. We humans are all imperfect but liberals at least try to life the good life. And religious liberals of all faiths tend to value good works above the kind of performative holy rolling posturing that Jesus condemned.
It’s interesting that the American Party of God is the manifestation of Cain and the ridiculer of Jesus.
I love how you are so sensitive about the idea of it being tribal signaling, and then spend the rest of the spot extolling how awesome your tribe is. Thanks for proving my point.
humans are all imperfect but liberals at least try to life the good life
It might be time for you to remind yourself of the seven deadly sins. "Pride" would be an especially good one to pay attention to.
I’m not condemning tribal signaling. I’m condemning false equivalence.
I myself am not a particularly religious person so, for me, justified pride is a virtue. Hubris is a vice.
But Cain is the man who slew his own brother and lied about it to god, so if Republicans are not their brothers keepers, can they really stand in good with god?
I myself am not a particularly religious person so, for me, justified pride is a virtue. Hubris is a vice
Yes, someone who needs to revisit the seven deadly sins would say that.
can they really stand in good with god?
I'm pretty sure God can figure that out without help from you.
Why do you think that? I know it’s a very major debate in philosophy and even theology but some explanation of why justified pride is a sin on a par with the other six might be nice. It seems to me that if you’ve done something good, you ought to have pride in an achievement or in doing a good deed or raising your children well. Hubris is an altogether different thing. So shouldn’t that be the sin?
You're going to have to do your own homework.
You’re saying that pride is a sin. I’m saying that justified pride is a virtue and hubris is a sin. It’s not a question of doing one’s homework. I’ve explained why I don’t think pride is a sin. I’m asking you to explain why it is so that we can have an intelligent conversation.
It’s not a question of doing one’s homework.
Sure it is.
so that we can have an intelligent conversation.
Not interested.
I’m getting that on the intelligent conversation thing. I’m of the belief that intelligent conversations are the only ones worth having.
I’m of the belief that intelligent conversations are the only ones worth having.
You do keep handing me straight lines, don't you?
There’s nothing wrong with intelligent conversations. Give it a try sometime.
I have intelligent conversations with people capable of them.
We can always hope that they get a fatal case and reduce the Repugnant vote by one more dead idiot.
Your implication that the politicization of public health measures was somehow a bipartisan effort, is comical AF.
We all know who turned dealing with this crisis into a political matter, don't we?
This isn't really the CDCs fault. Letting vaccinated people go unmasked makes sense and is a nice incentive to get people to vaccinate. But the only way to make that work is to have "vaccine passports", and government has been unwilling to introduce those...because of the anti-masker freakouts.
So here we are. The CDC is giving the correct advice, but the way policy is implemented, it undermines any remaining mask mandates.
Not sure what will happen. States that have them can keep their mandates for everyone, but public pressure to remove/amend them is going to be high, and there's no way to have a mandate only for unvaccinated if there's no way to tell who's unvaccinated. It's a bad situation that the CDC didn't create, so I don't know what they were supposed to do.
The CDC seems to realize they don't have much leverage over people's behavior, so they overstate things to have more impact, or they leave out the conditions. So, when they didn't want everyone draining the N95 mask supply needed by medical staff, they said they were useless for most people. When they wanted people to wear some kind of masks at least, that was declared a necessary precaution generally. Now they want people to get vaccinated, and part of the effort to persuade is to tell people that if they're vaccinated, they don't need a mask.
Masks are still important to wear in some surroundings, including in public, for various reasons. Your mask gives you some extra protection even if you've been vaccinated, and it gives others extra protection from you even if you've been vaccinated. Finally, when you're among strangers who don't know whether you're vaccinated, your mask might encourage them to keep wearing theirs as circumstances warrant.
I only hated the CDC when a Trump appointee was in charge, and then it was only him that I hated....
First and foremost, disagreeing with the CDC doesn't equate to hating the CDC.
I think the CDC has been, and is being, Straussian. The message on masks originally was that they weren't helpful. They knew otherwise at the time and they lied to manipulate people into not sucking up the limited supply that was more needed for health care workers. Now they're saying that, except for extremely limited circumstances, and, frankly, limited in rather inconsistent ways, the vaccinated can throw caution to the winds. Well, they're trying to incentivize people who haven't gotten vaccinated yet to do so by dangling a carrot in front of them. I think they also figure, tacitly, that those of us who have been consistent mask-users up to now will not be so quick to discard them--and to some extent that's probably true.
The problem with this approach is that the deceit and manipulation is ultimately exposed. And while it may have done some good in the short run, it damages their credibility in the long run. It's one thing to have a turnaround when the science develops new findings; it's quite another to change the recommendations for reasons other than those disclosed.