CDC UPDATE

[ontheweb]

4 hours ago, nocl said:

Not sure where you are getting your infection rates but Oregon for example has one of the strictest policies and they are 48th in per capita infections.  Washington is also strict and its rate is 47th.  fairly remarkable considering that they were one of the first areas to get hit.  New York is 35th. California is at 25th and is probably the worst of any of the strict states. Hawaii, one of the strictest is 51st. Alaska is 38th. So what states were you talking about as having the most stringent lockdowns? 

Facts, it would be nice if facts counted again instead of baseless assertions.

[Daniel A]

11 hours ago, brisalta said:

Was that a typo do you really not like people hand washing?

I was responding to your statement "that person is a health hazard and should not be out in public."

 

Did you not see where I wrote "I've always been a big believer in frequent handwashing but don't you think your position was just a little extreme?"

 

I was asking how do you propose to ban people from public and how do you determine who should be banned from being out in public and who is allowed to be in public.

[Potstech]

And how would you enforce all these bans? 

[broberts]

53 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

I was responding to your statement "that person is a health hazard and should not be out in public."

 

Did you not see where I wrote "I've always been a big believer in frequent handwashing but don't you think your position was just a little extreme?"

 

I was asking how do you propose to ban people from public and how do you determine who should be banned from being out in public and who is allowed to be in public.

 

I doubt the comment was meant literally. I certainly took it simply as an expression of extreme outrage. 

 

But to answer your question, how about an easily washed off bright neon pink dye applied to hands on entering a public washroom. (It shouldn't be difficult to have an automated mechanism to spray the dye when a latch plate was pressed to open the door.) People with bright pink hands can then be denied service and more hygienic individuals would know to avoid contact. 🙂

Edited February 11, 2021 by broberts

[voljeep]

so we got this going for us

 

%7B

 

CDC: Fully vaccinated people don't need to quarantine after COVID exposure

 

 

 

 

 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has issued new guidance that people who have been fully vaccinated for the coronavirus no longer need to quarantine if they are exposed to someone who is infected with COVID-19.

[USCcruisecrazy]

1 hour ago, voljeep said:

so we got this going for us

 

%7B

 

CDC: Fully vaccinated people don't need to quarantine after COVID exposure

 

 

 

 

 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has issued new guidance that people who have been fully vaccinated for the coronavirus no longer need to quarantine if they are exposed to someone who is infected with COVID-19.

I would take that as the CDC believing that an innoculated person can not spread the disease.  Perhaps, once vaccinated, you can not carry a high enough viral load to infect others.  Sort of like the young children being unable to carry a high viral load.  This could be very good news if correct.

[JimmyVWine]

13 hours ago, Cafedumonde said:

The US states with the most stringent lockdowns have the worst numbers.

That's not even close to being true.  The states with the worst numbers are the ones where people have never stopped demanding that they be able to get tattoos, go the gym, get their nails done, eat indoors in restaurants, etc., and state governing bodies have let them.  If you want to know what a real lockdown looked like, research what they did in the Wuhan region of China where this all began.  Despite being the point of origin, they beat this back way better than we did. The states with the worst numbers are the ones where the "we can't shut down the economy" voices "won" the argument.

 

Over the last several months, ND and SD peaked at 200 and 161 cases per day per 100,000 people.  In that same time, CA peaked at 111 and NY at 93.  Go ahead and try to make the argument that ND and SD had the most stringent lockdowns.  

Edited February 11, 2021 by JimmyVWine

[Bgwest]

17 hours ago, Outerdog said:

 

And it appears one of the many stoic Covid deniers has never left. Screw the numbers, right?

Stoic? Fascinating but very curious choice of words. 

[D C]

42 minutes ago, USCcruisecrazy said:

I would take that as the CDC believing that an innoculated person can not spread the disease.  Perhaps, once vaccinated, you can not carry a high enough viral load to infect others.  Sort of like the young children being unable to carry a high viral load.  This could be very good news if correct.

 

Given the assumption that there are tons of asymptomatic spreaders, their recommendation seems to involve quite a bit of flying by the seat of their pants without scientific merit or basis.  While their reasoning is sound imho, I'm perplexed that this is coming from the same organisation that seems to think that so much as looking at a cruise ship will give you covid. 

-------------

However, vaccinated persons with an exposure to someone with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 are not required to quarantine if they meet all of the following criteria^†:

• Are fully vaccinated (i.e., ≥2 weeks following receipt of the second dose in a 2-dose series, or ≥2 weeks following receipt of one dose of a single-dose vaccine)
• Are within 3 months following receipt of the last dose in the series
• Have remained asymptomatic since the current COVID-19 exposure

[JimmyVWine]

14 hours ago, Cafedumonde said:

It’s time to treat this like the flu.

Ah, yes.  Remember way back in the day when we were told that Covid-19 was just like the flu?  That 70,000 people die in a bad year from the flu and in most years it is closer to 40,000?  And remember when we were told that we will never reach those numbers with Covid so we shouldn't react any differently?  We're not a year past our first death in the U.S. and we are closing in on half a million. Yep.  Just like the flu.  And my nephew in pee wee football is just like Tom Brady.  I have plenty of relatives who have had the flu.  None died.  I have one close family member who contracted Covid. We put him in the ground on Tuesday.  

[dreaminofcruisin]

3 hours ago, D C said:

 

Given the assumption that there are tons of asymptomatic spreaders, their recommendation seems to involve quite a bit of flying by the seat of their pants without scientific merit or basis.  While their reasoning is sound imho, I'm perplexed that this is coming from the same organisation that seems to think that so much as looking at a cruise ship will give you covid. 

-------------

However, vaccinated persons with an exposure to someone with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 are not required to quarantine if they meet all of the following criteria^†:

• Are fully vaccinated (i.e., ≥2 weeks following receipt of the second dose in a 2-dose series, or ≥2 weeks following receipt of one dose of a single-dose vaccine)
• Are within 3 months following receipt of the last dose in the series
• Have remained asymptomatic since the current COVID-19 exposure

 

Interesting....I had heard this, but hadn't seen the details....

So...the CDC thinks you are only 'good' for 3 months?

 

[Daniel A]

14 minutes ago, dreaminofcruisin said:

Interesting....I had heard this, but hadn't seen the details....

So...the CDC thinks you are only 'good' for 3 months?

According to USA Today:  "The eased rules announced Wednesday start 14 days after the final vaccination dose and last for three months after that dose for people who show no symptoms. The latter timeframe could be extended as more is learned about the long-term impact of the vaccines." 

[JimmyVWine]

27 minutes ago, dreaminofcruisin said:

So...the CDC thinks you are only 'good' for 3 months?

I think this will be a rolling time period.  In 3 months' time, there will be people (health care workers in particular) who will have been vaccinated for almost 5 months. So at that point, the CDC will have data on people in the 4 and 5 month range.  If they appear to be doing well, then I would imagine that the 3 month qualifier will be moved out to 4 months, and so on, as long as the results are favorable.  

[brisalta]

9 hours ago, broberts said:

 

I doubt the comment was meant literally. I certainly took it simply as an expression of extreme outrage. 

 

But to answer your question, how about an easily washed off bright neon pink dye applied to hands on entering a public washroom. (It shouldn't be difficult to have an automated mechanism to spray the dye when a latch plate was pressed to open the door.) People with bright pink hands can then be denied service and more hygienic individuals would know to avoid contact. 🙂

 

That reminds me of the "reveal" tablets that dentists used to hand out to patients so they could check if they were using the correct brushing technique.

[D C]

3 hours ago, dreaminofcruisin said:

 

Interesting....I had heard this, but hadn't seen the details....

So...the CDC thinks you are only 'good' for 3 months?

 

Like I said... flying by the seat of their pants.  They have NO CLUE.  

[broberts]

7 minutes ago, D C said:

Like I said... flying by the seat of their pants.  They have NO CLUE.  

 

It has certainly done a much better job than those who have disregarded its advice.

 

Wonder why that is? Hmmmm . . . perhaps it's because they look at actual data and using its decades of experience, education, and training arrive at fundamentally sound recommendations.

[Bgwest]

2 hours ago, brisalta said:

 

That reminds me of the "reveal" tablets that dentists used to hand out to patients so they could check if they were using the correct brushing technique.

I do remember those. We’re telling our ages!!😃

[brisalta]

3 hours ago, Daniel A said:

According to USA Today:  "The eased rules announced Wednesday start 14 days after the final vaccination dose and last for three months after that dose for people who show no symptoms. The latter timeframe could be extended as more is learned about the long-term impact of the vaccines." 

 

Does the article give a citation to a source paper?

[D C]

35 minutes ago, broberts said:

 

It has certainly done a much better job than those who have disregarded its advice.

 

Wonder why that is? Hmmmm . . . perhaps it's because they look at actual data and using its decades of experience, education, and training arrive at fundamentally sound recommendations.

You realize this new advice is, according to the CDC themselves, being given without any data ('actual' or otherwise), right?  They preface their new advice with a statement that they don't know about transmission after vaccination.   In other words, they're guessing. 

[D C]

16 minutes ago, brisalta said:

 

Does the article give a citation to a source paper?

This is the CDCs release. The link doesn't seem to be dated, so I'm not sure if the info changes with each update. 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/clinical-considerations.html

[D C]

2 hours ago, brisalta said:

 

That reminds me of the "reveal" tablets that dentists used to hand out to patients so they could check if they were using the correct brushing technique.

You could brush for 8 days straight without getting ANY of that stuff off your teeth. Pretty sure the enamel would wear away faster. 

[broberts]

58 minutes ago, D C said:

This is the CDCs release. The link doesn't seem to be dated, so I'm not sure if the info changes with each update. 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/clinical-considerations.html

 

I don't see how you reach your conclusion after reading the relavent section. The document clearly outlines the thinking and reasons for reaching the conclusion that SOME fully vaccinated people do not have to quarantine after a contact or potential contact but do have to continue to mask, maintain separation, and minimize contacts. 

[Daniel A]

11 hours ago, brisalta said:

Does the article give a citation to a source paper?

The article itself didn't but here is the relevant wording from the CDC announcement:  "These quarantine recommendations for vaccinated persons, including the criteria for timing since receipt of the last dose in the vaccination series, will be updated when more data become available and additional COVID-19 vaccines are authorized."

 

CDC Release:

Interim Clinical Considerations for Use of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines | CDC

 

I hope this helps.  🙂

[PrincessLuver]

12 hours ago, broberts said:

 

I don't see how you reach your conclusion after reading the relavent section. The document clearly outlines the thinking and reasons for reaching the conclusion that SOME fully vaccinated people do not have to quarantine after a contact or potential contact but do have to continue to mask, maintain separation, and minimize contacts. 

 

Exactly how it read to me......one thing is for sure.....the CDC and others have been pretty accurate with death forecasts each month in the US.......

[D C]

On 2/11/2021 at 10:13 PM, broberts said:

 

I don't see how you reach your conclusion after reading the relavent section. The document clearly outlines the thinking and reasons for reaching the conclusion that SOME fully vaccinated people do not have to quarantine after a contact or potential contact but do have to continue to mask, maintain separation, and minimize contacts. 

Are you equating thinking and reasoning with your assertion that their opinions are excellent "because they look at actual data"? 

 

I defy you to present the data upon which they are relying for their current recommendation.