The
CDC now says that people who have completed their two-dose course of the vaccination and waited two weeks no longer need to quarantine if they are exposed to a known COVID case. They do, however, need to continue wearing masks all the time and continue social distancing, because reasons.
Up to now, I'd have thought that the purpose of quarantine and masks was roughly the same, but a matter of degree: we treat everyone as a potential carrier who's deadly to those with whom he comes into contact, because even though non-symptomatic transfer is minimal, the new rule is life has to be 100% safe or we can't live it at all. What's more, if someone has actually been exposed to a known carrier, it's not enough to wear a mask and stay six feet from everyone: he has to lock himself in his home.
“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.”
The criteria include having had both shots of either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines — the two shots that are available to the U.S. public at the moment — and that at least two weeks have gone by since the second dose was administered. Studies have shown that full immunity is not built up until a couple of weeks after finishing the vaccine regimen.
* * *
The agency maintained that vaccinated people should continue following all other health guidance, including wearing a mask and social distancing when possible. Studies have shown that those who have been inoculated could still hold the virus in their noses and throats and transmit it to those around them.
So now, if you've been vaccinated, you don't have to lock yourself up, because you're not dangerous. You only have to avoid exposing your exhalations to anyone, forever, because you're dangerous. Is the idea supposed to be that you're still contagious, just not very? Because that argument hasn't worked so far in any attempt to make our pandemic policy adhere to reason or evidence.
12 comments:
Silly.
It's the VERY SAME reason and evidence which makes trannies into women, men, or any of the other 72 flavors of sex.
We live in a 55+ community, most of whom will be fully vaccinated by the time good weather comes and we are moving about. I expect the continuing restrictions to be quietly ignored. People will go into each other's houses again, shake hands, hug.
I don't mind keep up appearances for the sake of the anxiety of others. They have no way of knowing whether I have been vaccinated or not, and they deserve to be able to go to the grocery store without feeling compromised. But it's going to be less and less observance going forward, perhaps without announcement, without obvious breaks. When the numbers go way down there will be the powerful argument "But no one is dying anymore." Until then people will still wring their hands and worry - on a largely subjective basis - they are still in danger.
Governors will also test how much federal versus state rule-making there will be.
Yeah, at some point people will just stop doing it. With luck that point will come after there's a large vaccinated population, and the vaccine will be both safe and effective as we all hope.
On the other hand, one of the UNC teams just beat Duke at basketball, and the resulting unmasked street party was so large that the Powers That Be are closing the campus to in-person classes again. The kids are already done with the stuff.
They have no way of knowing whether I have been vaccinated or not, and they deserve to be able to go to the grocery store without feeling compromised.
That's a two-way street. You deserve to not be confronted with snowflakes looking for excuses to be terrified. The odds of their getting seriously sick--from exposure to you or anyone else--are vanishingly small and even tinier that they'll die, even for geezers, unless they have serious comorbidities. Then they share the obligation not to be exposed; they don't get to inflict all action onto others.
Eric Hines
Given all the unknowns in most public situations - who is vaccinated, how much virus is being carried, how much is expelled, how much does it take to infect an unvaccinated person, is there a cumulative effect to exposure - the distinction makes sense. A vaccinated person should have antibodies to keep virus replication to a minimum, below the level of showing symptoms, but that doesn't mean they have no virus particles. They shouldn't have to limit their activities if exposed but should probably continue adherence to guidelines.
Let's not provide further ammunition for the creation of a two-track system of vaccinated and unvaccinated persons. The current administration already seems to be headed towards that road.
I don't understand the argument that they need to wear masks but don't need to limit their activities. If that makes sense after the vaccine, why didn't it make sense before the vaccine? The argument for quarantine for asymptomatic people was the same then as now. Why wouldn't the same analysis apply to masks?
It's obvious to me that it makes sense to treat vaccinated and vaccinated people, and populations, differently. If it doesn't, we're looking at a future in which most of us finally get vaccinated, only to be told that pandemic-inspired economy-crushing mandatory policies are permanent.
Given all the unknowns in most public situations - who is vaccinated, how much virus is being carried, how much is expelled, how much does it take to infect an unvaccinated person, is there a cumulative effect to exposure....
The critical Known Known here is that all of those "unknowns," along with a host of lesser knowns, aggregate into that vanishingly small likelihood of getting seriously sick, much less being hospitalized, much much less dying from a Wuhan Virus infection.
Let's not provide further ammunition for the creation of a two-track system of vaccinated and unvaccinated persons.
No. Surrendering to the threat of an action is to allow the threatened action to occur--to actively encourage it, even. I choose not to kowtow.
Eric Hines
There is a cumulative effect to exposure, as in health care professionals.
As to vanishingly small chances of people getting sick, are you saying those 500,000 aren't dead?
are you saying those 500,000 aren't dead?
You can hype your hysteria to your heart's content. A mortality rate of 0.3% for the ordinarily healthy is pretty close to vanishingly small. And that's based only on cases, not total infections. The mortality rate for folks over 60-ish is still only 3-5%. The only folks at serious risk are those with serious comorbidities. And those statistics are muddled by coroners not keeping consistent methods of sorting out deaths by comorbidity with the Wuhan Virus present from deaths by Wuhan Virus with comorbidity present from death by one with the other contributing.
Eric Hines
You’re probably missing the argument AVI has been carrying on about excess deaths at his place. Maybe we can cut into that figure somewhat with excess overdose deaths; suicide would had to have tripled to have a serious impact, and in Japan where numbers are immediately available it’s only up 16%. Something has killed a lot of extra people this year.
Sure, and the Wuhan Virus has had a hand in it. But focusing on the virus' kills while not attending to the context--cases, infections, recoveries, actual causes of death where the virus is present--is counterproductive.
Eric Hines
I'm impatient with the line of argument that seems to assume we have a choice between denying that the virus is dangerous, on the one hand, and assuming that any hare-brained superstitious policy is warranted, despite its obvious costs, on the other. This is not the way rational people should decide on the policies they assert the right to impose on other free citizens.
Post a Comment