Vaccinated Americans now may go without masks in most places, the CDC said

When an airplane crashes, the reaction is less about loss of 100-300 lives, but the way in which it happens. If a loaded 747 crashed every day, the negative reaction wouldn’t be primarily because people died (that happens en masse daily), but because the safest mode of travel just became unsafe.

Aside from general aviation concerns, that 747-400 will have young families, infants and children on board, whereas exposing everyone on that 747-400 to COVID-19 would mostly result in the deaths of the elderly and the infirm.

If we had an outbreak of Spanish flu with the same overall death rate it would not be as bad. It would be much worse. The deaths of the young who have their whole life ahead of them is a much worse outcome than someone who statistically would be dead anyway from old age or other disease in a few years.

This is intuitively understandable to every human being. If a 95 year old dies in their sleep we mourn them but think "wow, they made it to 95!". If an infant dies in their sleep it's a tragedy.

I genuinely don't understand why everyone has insisted on talking about COVID-19 in terms of absolute deaths. For everything else like heart disease etc. we talk about statistically "losing X years of life".

The median age of death for COVID-19 has been at or above the statistical life expectancy.

In the worst case we could have an outbreak of another strain of Coronavirus next year that'll kill 1/2 as many as COVID-19, but disproportionately target those under 10 years of age. Because of this nonsensical messaging people will think "oh, only half as bad as COVID-19".

In 2017 there were no commercial passenger jet deaths - that's how amazingly safe these machines are. Any such crash casts doubt on this idea.

Imagine the difference between "literally perfectly safe" and "can (rarely) cause death".

Same with events like 9/11 - no one going to work that day expected to die like this just hours later.

Pneumonia has a death rate of up to 10% among hospitalized patients(mostly older folks), so people who drop off their parent at the hospital are often already mentally preparing for the worst.

Edit: interesting note … if you were to take the number of deaths in the Second World War that would amount to 86 fully loaded 747 aircraft flying into the side of a mountain per day for six years.

I just spent about 3 months non-stop hospital visits for the past year and a half for open reduction internal fixation multiple times. The hospital was empty like literally the lights are out in this hallway I have to find the light switch and turn it on so that I can go down to the X-ray room. This is a city of 300,000 with an empty hospital. Yet they claim it's full when all 35 covid beds are taken. I walked all around the hospital hoax fake are the first words that came to my mind.

not necessarily because humans don't care, but simply because most humans don't usually reason with numbers that large. I can understand the approximate size and volume of a dozen eggs. I can't for a million unless you show me an acre stacked with them. Death tolls are similar.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27145446

There are a ton of factors worth considering, the jobs report and economic outlook at the top of the list IMO. Next are the set of realities that require confronting... such as the facts that vaccination sites are sitting vacant and doses are going to waste, everyone who got a vaccine has at least one dose and everyone who hasn't got one yet probably never will, states like FL and TX "reopening completely" regardless... and honestly, the people at large are pretty much unfazed, at this point, by hospitalization/death numbers that stay flat or trend somewhat downward. And(!), not to mention, the fact that no politician wants to be caught dead approving another round of stimulus checks and paycheck loans.

I do wonder if they will try and stimulate the retail/hospitality industries though as one more nudge undercover as a COVID measure rather than economic austerity.

This is a media blitz, and one may wonder why there are prepared, published stories about CDC guidance that hadn't yet even been published.

I'm sure there are many rational reasons for this. One, indeed, is particularly salient.

That's the key observation, I think. It's not about the mask, it's about something else entirely, and I don't know what that is. Where I live (Sweden), there is little of that tension, and so masks weren't needed.

> We are going to need to respect other people’s choices and try to be as patient and kind as we can.

You cannot just stand by what amounts to religious zeal. It will affect you one way or another.

My personal hesitation is that people are just going to ignore the explicit condition of full vaccination. Worst case outcome could result in dragging the pandemic out and providing opportunity for new variants to develop.

A concern closer to home is that this will increase risk for my parents, who have been hesitant about the mRNA vaccines and refuse J&J because is produced using a fetal cell line.

This is how critical thinking works. If an organization advises something you think might be risky, you question it, and maybe don't do the potentially-risky thing until you have more information. But if an organization advises you to do something they claim reduces risk, you go ahead and do it. If information later comes out that this risk-reducing thing wasn't useful, then you stop doing it; you haven't lost anything by trying it.

Regardless, we've all seen what happens in places where restrictions were lifted earlier than they should have been. Being cautious is the right move.

As for myself, I'll be fully protected by the vaccine in about two weeks. I'll likely continue wearing a mask in public in order to help others around me feel more comfortable (because they have no idea if I've been vaccinated or not), but among people I know, I'll take the mask off. Once the vaccination rate is high enough around here, I'll leave it off in public, too, assuming state/local mandates allow it.

If masks work, and you don’t wear one, you are potentially killing people and worsening the pandemic.

If they aren’t needed, and you do wear one anyways, no harm has been done.

This would have been unthinkable yesterday.

> Will this move actually counter our slowing vaccination rates?

Yes, loosening controls does that. It also reduces the harms imposed by the controls. Vaccination and infection affect the cost/benefit analysis between those effects.

Personally they lost my trust when they told us to not wear masks for some time early in the pandemic.

Like, on one end you have states waiting for an impossibly high threshold of vaccination before masks go away or nightclubs open up with dance floors. And now they can say “oh ok that was old guidance, we’re good now”

On the other hand it also caters to the states that ignored old guidance “ah! Sanity has prevailed! Now can these few businesses that demand masks stop fighting us on this?”

I’m back in SF now and everybody is wearing the mask. Everybody. The adults, the children, Even the vaccinated people. Yesterday the waiter asked me if we could put back our mask so she could hand us our plate.

Country of extremes. I feel like there’s no going back to normal eventhough I’m fully vaccinated.

Oh, the humanity.

If most of the new cases start to be among the unvaccinated, that could make for a stick.

Good lord. It is almost like they want to discourage people to not get vaccinated.

I think people should take care about their own health, if you are in risk group get vaccinated, if you are not in risk group what's the point urging someone to get vaccinated if risk groups are vaccinated or are ready to bear risks?

Possibly the aftermath will be the crime, to continue the measure when there is no need, but we reached 200 death in a megalopolis of 8M people only because we shut the fuck up a bit and synchronized our behaviour.

In a word, I dont think the american CDC main goal is to profit or enjoy a sadist power bath... at worst, they re honestly misguided, I think.

I maybe a minority here though, because I also to a large degree trust other American institutions. And that's coming from an immigrant who grew up in a country where the population is bombarded with anti-American conspiracy theories on a daily basis. The reason that I believe in American institutions is not because I take their words as Gospel. But because I believe for the most part trusting them leads to better results than the other way around.

They generally match what Id expect them to be saying, so it seems trustworthy enough, but it is confirmation bias. When they'll say something I don't expect, I think bit more about it and try to figure out why there's a mismatch.

The FBI and NSA and the like don't speak publically, and when they do, they're trying to cover up wrongdoings

We'd be in a very different conversation if the CDC was telling everyone "we need you to take this pill. No we're not telling you what's in it, or why you should take it and no one else in the world will be reviewing it."

Second, the difference between CIA, FBI and CDC is that usually when the CDC makes a pronouncement, it is linked to some scientific basis. Unlike the CIA that can claim Iraq has 'weapons of mass destruction' based on vague evidence that nobody - except for a handful of legislators and the president - get to see, one can go and track the science behind a CDC's announcement relatively easily.

I don't think the way they handled all this shows them to be as competent as advised.

- FBI: Hoover

- NSA: Snowden

- Police: Floyd

For the CDC I know only of the recommendation to not wear a mask at the beginning of the pandemic, and it’s debatable if it was a lie given the knowledge at the time (many other health agencies did the same recommendation in other countries at the time).

I don't think that many people on this site are claiming that the American government is incompetent in their surveillance and SIGINT endeavors, from a strictly scientific/technical point of view. Rather that they're too competent and being too effective. Whether those technical capabilities should be applied in certain situations is a political question.

> CDC

I would hope that the majority of the site here, who do not have doctorate level degrees in epidemiology and virology, can realize the extent of education and experience that it takes to get a PhD in those fields. My primary complaint with the American government's handling of covid19 (600,000+ dead??!) is not with any incompetence on the part of the scientists, but the policy makers, in particular the previous administration. And the general populace's resistance to measures that could have halved the cumulative death toll. Additionally with state governments that have gone through multiple rounds of "we must reopen the economy!" to "oh shit! coronavirus is spreading again!"

I'd imagine people aren't just being "stupid" when they decide not to trust these institutions but are simply cynical knowing the process can be hi-jacked by politics (regardless what side) every 4 years, and hardly any continuity due to the deep polarization. It doesn't make people trust in institutions when its core mission can be put upside down simply because a new administration comes to power.

The CDC is for the benefit of the public. Peoples trust in them is needed in order to be effective. It is pretty transparent in that you can usually look at the data they are using to support their guidelines. If they were keeping something secret the chance of a leak is much greater and there is data from other countries that can be used to corroborate their conclusions.

Snowden's leak was barely a blip on the radar. And it was a proof of how deep the surveillance went. Nobody cared. Patriot act - nobody cared.

People are addicted to outrage and conspiracies not actual reality.

The importance of following the principles for public health is greater than the importance of the advice being unbiasedly perfect at every moment.

In any case, stepping back from the pandemic and other personal biases, the tactics and narrative of the last 15+ months begin to feel like some new (covert?) form of totalitarianism.

- There's an evil enemy that must be intricated for the good of all.

- There's hyperbolic fear and widespread death. The deaths are real, but data is cherry-picked in a propaganda-y sort of way. Correlation is more important than causation.

- There is a lone figure-head we must promise our allegiance and dedication to. Signs on front yards, t-shirts, etc. Note: No one voted for Fauci. And while he's certainly accomplished it's difficult to imagine one single opinion - in a cloud of unknowns - could carry so much authority.

- Churches were closed, as were other assemblies. The State persists. It's powers broader.

- There is a tide of "The State knows best (your rights and liberty be damned.)" Do as you're told or you will be marginalized or (socially) silenced. As long as you cooperate and follow the gov's you will be safe.

Please try not to knee-jerk. The above list are simple facts.

All that aside, for anyone still trusting of the CDC it's best to check the data on causes of death prior to this pandemic. Make note of how many of those conditions are preventable. Nrxt track down the Covid death's comorbidies - which are rarely mentioned - that killer Covid pairs well with. To say Covid killed someone who was (e.g.) morbidly obese is misleading. It's called morbidly obese for a reason.

Ultimately, Covid 19 is a symptom. It's a symptom of our heath personally and as a society. It's a symptom of bigger and broader forces "at war" over who is in control.

Yeah, sounds like madness. But please keep in mind, so did totalitarianism.

https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/living-und...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Surveillance_Capi...

p.s. There's a chapter in Adam Grant's book "Think Again" on jabs, and how to go about convincing someone to think again about their anti vax ideas. What we've been doing for Covid is off target. Yet why is that? Adam Grant knows something the whole of the USA readership does not?

Literally never. I am hoping for 60%.

You see all people around you wearing masks, you wear a mask, these simple facts act as reminder that it is a pandemy, that you have to be careful about what you do (keep distance where possible, etc.) besides wearing the mask in itself.

Soon you will see lots of other poeople around you not wearing masks and you have no way to know if they are actually vaccinated (and probably in this case you are "safe") or if they are simply not wearing the mask because they ignore the recommendation or don't believe in masks or whatever (but they are not actually vaccinated so potentially "unsafe" if they come near you).

  * The vaccine is stronger than a low-viral-dose infection; you wind up with more antibodies and more T/B cell engagement, so theoretically more robust immunity
  * The vaccines might be better or worse than natural infection against the variants; on the one hand your body fought a whole wild virus and so the antibodies aren't restricted to the spike protein, like in the mRNA case, so your body might be less overfit. On the other hand, the vaccines seems to producer a stronger immune response, as stated above, so that might be better if the antibodies still mostly line up?

As a weird side note, at least among my cohort, the side effects seem to be a really clear marker of who's immune system recognizes the disease. My friends who didn't catch it all reported no problems the first time and symptoms on the second shot. My friends who tested positive reported symptoms from the first shot. I had to start immunosuppression after the first shot, but before the second (TNF Alpha Inhibitor), and the symptoms at the second shot were actually a relief that my immune system hadn't been tamped down too hard...

In an infection your body randomly keys on any of a large number of characteristics of the virus. Those almost certainly will be less lasting than the vaccine.

That’s why to get the vaccine.

Vaccine appointments weren't widely available for everyone until late April, so for people who got their first shot then , add four weeks until the second shot plus two weeks for the vaccine to be fully effective, many people won't be fully vaccinated until mid-June.

> The Swiss Policy Research site has been criticized for spreading conspiracy theories including claims that QAnon was a psyop of the FBI.[5] and theories relating to the COVID-19 pandemic.[2][6] German public broadcasterTagesschau calls SPR a propaganda tool[7] and Media Bias/Fact Check says the site is "a Moderate Conspiracy website based on the promotion of unproven claims."[4]

What does this mean?

The reason for the pandemic is poor institutional response for ultimately political reasons. I'm not sure de-politicizing a situation where an entire civilization has endured collective trauma is going to be easy. Don't the Stoics propose to work within your means and not to wish impossible things?

I mean, imagine it was a more simple situation. What if we knew for a fact that if you wore a mask when you had the flu, then you wouldn’t spread it. In my opinion, it would be fantastic to have a healthy social expectation for an individual to limit their infectiousness while sick, instead of just going to work or school and blatantly spreading the flu. That would prevent a lot of sickness and even death! Having the flu sucks.

COVID is similar, but it’s not as easy because it’s not clear when you could be spreading anything. COVID’s a sleeper, and sometimes it spreads with no symptoms. Super dangerous, eh? That’s why it makes sense to extend that first, simpler example so that we can be more cautious as a society towards something which has caused more than three million human beings to be terminated. Not only does it make sense, but I’d argue it’s even the moral option to be cautious until we can be more confident of our society’s combined immunity towards the disease.

For Yankee Stadium, as one example, here are their proof requirements: "(a) a CDC-approved COVID-19 Vaccination Record Card; (b) Excelsior Pass; (c) a government-issued photograph identification and proof of vaccination form; or (d) electronically stored versions of any of the foregoing."

[edit: This new system applies to Yankees games starting May 21 and later. Not sure about other venues.]

Details: https://www.mlb.com/yankees/ballpark/information/fully-vacci...

Excelsior Pass is the state's own vaccination passport app/website, which indeed isn't mandatory but which is available to anyone who gets their vaccine series in NY.

Yes, I agree this is not as practical for a small business of whatever kind.

"If he dies, he dies"

I don't know your position, but I have seen similar responses to yours from people who I know have taken the position of "trust the scientists." Don't you think that the smart folks at the CDC have gone through a similar thought process as you and are issuing these guidelines regardless? Why would we not trust their judgement now?

Vaccinations have been open to 18+ for long enough now. If you're not vaccinated at this point then you either can't be (and should be wearing a mask) or aren't concerned about COVID anyway. Considering that, what is the purpose of a vaccine passport? Who does it help?

I really do believe that a large amount of people do want 0.000% risk, and they'd be happy to wear masks until 2030 to guarantee it.

As for myself, I'm fully vaccinated but will continue to wear masks to make other people feel comfortable. But even before being vaccinated I didn't care too much if people wore masks around me and I certainly won't care now.

Yes, thanks to all the regulations.

> How much flatter do you want it to be before returning to normal life?

When returning to normal life, you want to curve to stay flat. So when a majority of people are vaccinated.

With exponential growth, numbers either trend to 0 or to infinity, and they do so very quickly. There's only 2 endgames possible in a pandemic:

(1) The numbers trend to 0 and the risk is 0.00% (see: polio)

(2) The numbers trend to infinity (i.e. the disease goes endemic) and risk is equal to whatever risk the disease carries on infection/reinfection over your lifetime (see: the spanish flu)

Pre-vaccine, "flatten the curve" and other marketing-speak meant "stall on option 2 because we can't handle that level of risk in our society right now" - hospitals overflowing, etc. The death rate would have been out of control if we went straight to infinity at the infection rates we were seeing.

With the vaccine rollout, and with medical advances in treating severe covid, we've dramatically lowered the risk of option 2, and additionally we've opened the door to potentially taking option 1.

The CDC is probably gunning for option 1 here (and based on data in Israel it seems like it's possible with a high enough vaccination rate, although I think globally it will be a challenge).

If you keep this framework in mind, the goalposts haven't really moved at all- just the marketing used (hence: "flatten the curve" became "new normal" which then became "get vaccinated")

Edit: Evidently discussion about this sort of thing is quite polarizing. Just to be clear, this is a personal analysis of decision makers' true "goalposts", as the parent post seemed distressed by the moving of goalposts

I'm not advocating for or defending any particular policy, so please don't interpret my post as such. Thank you.

Is there any proof the initial mask guideline was intended to do that? I feel like the initial mask guideline really was what it was, and later they added the "yeah, we knew masks work, but we wanted to protect supply" to save face.

The CDC explained that we didn’t know if people could be contagious after being vaccinated. Not sure where this stands.

Now most people who want the vaccine will soon have it but it looks like lots of holdouts.

So, now we have a carrot and stick. No mask required and people are now on their own if they choose to skip it

I would assume vaccinated people that are sick enough to be having symptoms are probably also infectious.

I went to Taco Bueno on the way home and didn’t wear a mask. Showed the teller the headline… then found out he couldn’t read.

So yeah that wasn’t awesome.

But this news is. First time I haven’t worn a mask in like a year.

For the same reasons they cover up UFOs. (half joking about the UFOs, but not the CDC)

People have been constantly trying to "reason" behind certain rules. "Why do I have to X if Y is allowed, it makes no sense!" when most of the time it's purely so its possible to enforce something.

In this case as states adopt this recommendation, you can essentially assume any kind of mask rule is null and void and it's now just a suggestion, because it's now completely impossible to enforce anything.

Fortunately vaccines are readily available in the US now, and while not perfect for people who can't take it, their risk should be much, much lower (unless they're in Florida, in which case, I feel for them).

I mean sure, there is a small chance someone could infect you, and a much much smaller chance that than infection actually causes you a hospitalisation, but it’s not a big risk once you are vaccinated yourself.

If you think the vaccine works, which I assume you do, then why do you need to know others vaccine status?

There's been plenty of data that shows this. That's why they did this. How much more data do you want?

*90% is based on the high R-value of this virus taken together with the known even-higher R-value of several of the variants. It's a realistic number, despite what some politicians would have you believe.

[1]: https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/05/fda-authorizes-pfize...