Big thanks to the CDC

[SheltieLover]

So, I venured out to a small farmers' market near home today, just a short time ago.

Granted, there is no guarantee than any of these rednecks would have been otherwise wearing masks or social distancing, but NOT ONE person had a mask on, or made any attempt whatsoever to social distance.

I left in disgust (typical when I venture out here in stupidville), headed to the grocery store, same thing: not one mask on anyone approaching or departing from store. This is very unusual!

Meanwhile, we had almost 300 new cases again yesteday in this relatively small county.

So, kudos to whomever made the genius decision to retract mask and social distance guidance. Is Putin happy yet?

Seems to me like Uncle Joe needs to clean house again at CDC.

[USALiberal]

1. +1000! Nt

[CentralMass]

2. K&R

[hlthe2b]

3. CDC internally was vociferously split on this, I can tell you, but there

were other factors besides the science, need to encourage vaccine, and unknown unknowns from emerging variants on the table, (including, I believe [reading between the lines] rising violence statistics across the country and anti-government chatter around COVID restriction)

No, it isn't that CDC needs to clean house. I would have been among those wanting to go much slower and to tie it around performance outcomes relative to vaccination and 7-day daily case rates, but all I can say is my perspective was not an isolated opinion from what I've heard. And while I personally disagree with the current approach, I'd be lying if I said I could not understand why some advocated for it.

Many of us fully vaccinated will continue to wear masks outside health care settings in public. As with many in Asia decades ago when SARS first emerged in 2003, this should not be a strange sight and there should be no stigma. Do what makes you comfortable.

BTW, Krogers and its affiliates (King Soopers, City Markets) and Target are still among retailers retaining mask orders, at least for now. They will get my business.

[VarryOn]

7. If the bureaucrats at the CDC were split...

And the agency makes a determination on an issue, the Administration (aka “politicians”) made the tie-breaking decision…as they should. President Biden wasn’t caught off by the announcement; he was involved. If he’s good with it, so am I.

[hlthe2b]

9. It wasn't the "bureaucrats," but career professionals who made the recommendation after

MUCH debate. CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky concurred.

There have been a lot of clearly WRONG decisions with re: COVID-19, that were politically driven alone, but this wasn't one of those. This was a highly debated issue with a lot of scientific factors, as well as more societal issues considered. No one is ever 100% satisfied with those policies that are less clear-cut complex decisions but at least it was justifiable and not based on nothing more than politics-- as we've seen in the past.

[boston bean]

16. This was just kicking the can back to the states. Been down that road once.

Did not think we would see that after a Biden win.

They just decided to wash their hands of it due to things other than the science. I am upset about it.

[SheltieLover]

22. This does not sit right with me either.

Very "un-Biden-like" tbh.

Giving red governors and mayors fodder to punish health departments in red states.

I believe we had nearly 300 new cases again today (or maybe it was yesterday, but you get the point)...

And I see nothing to indicate thta vaccines are effective against variants. I'm not saying they aren't, just saying there isn't info available yet.

Quite disturbing, imo.

[Nay]

10. I'm in your camp. I believe the CDC is split, as you say. And I can understand why the

CDC came to the conclusion that there was never going to be herd immunity through vaccination because a large portion of the populace is irredeemably stupid, off-their-heads Christofascist, and/or rabidly RW. In the face of that realization, some said to themselves "fuck these idiots." The CDC must be aghast at the numbers of health care workers who have refused the vax -- I hope that the vax will be taken off the "experimental" list so that employers can require their employees to get vaccinated and solve that problem.

I can't blame the CDC. I'm sure they ran computer simulations by the dozen to determine if it was even possible to achieve herd immunity in light of the idiocy that has taken hold of this country. I'm sure they took societal factors (too many morons) into consideration and decided to stop trying.

Our whole family is vaccinated and the teen grandchild has his first vac this week. I plan to patronize Kroger's and Target, and I'll mask up when around others. I myself have lost all sympathy for the idiots.

[SheltieLover]

20. Thank you for your insights, Hlthe2b!

Of course, they are trying to drag the deplorables into conscious territory. Lost cause, imo.

And as for the violence stats against store employees, isn't it a terrible shame that those who even hint at violence towards store employees (or anyone else for that matter!) aren't incarcerated and charged with felonies?

Again, placating the deploranbles.

I hope their directive works out well. I'd love nothing more than to be "wrong" on this, but I'm not seeing it and not "feeling" it.

Yes, I will continue to mask and social distance, as that is where my comfort level is. Common sense, IMO, given that the vaccines are reported to be 94-95% effective, and that there is no peer-reviewed journal data regarding the efficacy of vaccines vs. known variants.

For those who are comfortable with gambling on long-haul, more power to them. That's not where my head is, though.

From where I'm sitting, this most recent CDC directive empowers qpuke governors to drop mask mandates, which they were largely in the process of doing anyway but, now, they can point to the CDC & say, "see, even the experts say there is no need for masks."

To me, this smacks of the beginning of the pandemic when the CDC ever so slickly told us not to wear masks. I never bought into that BS either and most certainly will not let my guard down now.

I'm on the side of the 700+ epidemiologists who wrote the letter in response to this most troubling CDC decision, stating that we should expect to be masking for at least another year to get through this safely.

[ananda]

4. I was also thinking there's something wrong at the CDC.

It's way too soon to stop masking and distancing

[Calculating]

11. When will it ever be the time?

There's always gonna be antivax idiots. In my state the vaccination rates are dropping hard and we're only at like 50%. If people are worried get the vaccine, if not deal with getting covid at some point. I'm not gonna wear masks for the rest of my life out of concern for the voluntarily unvaccinated.

[ananda]

12. I didn't say it would never be the time.

But for the present it's better to be safe than sorry.

I'll feel better when I hear more about boosters.

[George II]

21. There are only six or seven states that are up over 70% adults vaccinated, and a few more at 65%....

And although some children have been vaccinated, they only cleared children a week or so ago.

That's still a LOT of unvaccinated people to contend with. Plus we have to worry about those willing to lie about being vaccinated, too.

I'll be wearing a mask for at least a few more months.

[crud]

5. Sorry to get personal, but

kindly tell us where, in a general sense of course.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

6. Where are you?

I'm in Santa Fe and everyone here is faithfully masking. The stores all still have their Masks Required signs.

[sheshe2]

8. K&R

😷

[BannonsLiver]

13. Oh yeah

Yeah, the CDC is in league with Putin. Makes total sense.

[SheltieLover]

14. Have you seen peer-reviewed, hard data on vaccine efficacy with variants?

I haven't.

Let's keep the focus where it belongs. On the responsibility of public health officials doing their jobs to protect the American public.

[BannonsLiver]

15. Yes, and thankfully they are doing that.

[SheltieLover]

17. In your opinion, apparently.

I have seen nothing to indicate that those who are fully vaccinated are protected from variants.

Obviously, the vaccines themselves are not 100% effective, so there is that, too.

Just a few facts for you.

[BannonsLiver]

18. Yep in my opinion.

What’s funny is you think the CDC didn’t do any examination into variants and their ability to evade protection from the vaccines. Only you and others here have that special insight.

[SheltieLover]

19. Well, where is the peer-reviewed data?

Certainly not available for our perusal, so why should we presume it exists, or is favorable?

I don't do blind faith. Period. Ever.

Remember "don't wear masks" in the beginning of the pandemic, from the CDC, because they wanted masks to go to healthcare workers?

Pfffffft.

I knew that was BS then and I feel the same way about this latest load of BS they've dumped on us.

Likely trying to placate the magats. Not interested in that personally.

I prefer truth. Transparent truth, which is clearly lacking here.

But, by all means, if you feel so inclined, follow their advice and see where that goes.

[ProfessorGAC]

24. I Keep Seeing "Variants"

Three variants around for a while now (South Africa, UK, Brazil) have not provided any statistically significant outcome of lower efficacy.
The India variant is said to be as much as 10x more contagious than those predominant here.
India for two weeks is averaging around 375,000 cases a day. Deaths are around 4,000/day, or around 1.08% of cases.
The US has reported under 34 million cases & under 590,000 deaths. About 1.75% of cases.
If the variants are more contagious, but are creating a lower death rate, we don't need a peer reviewed study to preliminarily conclude that these more contagious forms are not more deadly, and may be less so.
Granted, India's reporting structure has barely caught up to the reality there, and overall deaths over the past 14 months is likely underreported.
But, I only used the data for the last 2 weeks, so anything before late April isn't relevant to this point.
The demand for a peer reviewed analysis goes both ways.
Where is the peer reviewed analysis showing the variants appear vax resistant?
You want it one way. I want the other. It's a stand-off.
But, every conclusion from the available information is not instantaneously invalidated by the lack of a peer review.
When I defended my dissertation, my numbers & conclusions were correct after the peer review. They were correct before it.
The peer review didn't prove anything other than I didn't make up any numbers, didn't plagiarize, or do cheater math. The results were already valid. And, it was obvious before the review ever occurred. Sometimes peer reviews are a formality, not an endorsement.
And, this distrust of CDC is misplaced.
The early recs about masks were based on best available information at the time that contact transmission was a much bigger risk than we now understand it to be. And, there was an element of supply protection for front line workers.
That practical aspect of those early recommendations is easily forgotten or ignored.
Now that Redfield is gone, I don't see the validity of continued distrust.

[Elessar Zappa]

23. I'm comfortable going unmasked.

You’re mileage may vary.

[XanaDUer2]

25. I'm still wearing masks

I have to stand near the public. Some of whom tell me COVID is not real or they're not getting vaccinated.

[Tree Lady]

26. I went to co op today masks still worn

I asked clerk if they were going to keep doing so and he said yes, that they felt too many cases in our area. I told him I agree and I am still wearing mine.

But I also don't know if my governor has changed the rules yet here in Oregon.