We’ll have to agree to disagree, as I think that the May announcement was one of the few things they did that made perfect sense (while ‘following the science’).
A few data points aren’t science. Science doesn’t change with a few new data points. Science is about more fundamental understanding. We never really understood the virus. We shouldn’t pretend we do by claiming it was science. If we don’t, we should act with caution, especially with respect to a pandemic.
1 Like
@1NJParent - “If we don’t, we should act with caution, especially with respect to a pandemic.”
Isn’t there a distinction between acting with caution and acting under the presumption that a significant portion of the populace will behave dishonestly? If the science -at the time - said vaccinated are safe without masks, it seems fair to tell them such and allow them that privilege. For me to accept that the correct decision was to deny them that information/freedom because of an expectation that the unvaccinated would fraudulently do the same is really disheartening.
ETA - if your point was that it was a matter of - at that time we believed vaccinated were safe without masks but it was uncertain if this belief would hold so we should then act with caution and delay the decision, that is more understandable.
1 Like
The volume of laws, regulations, and presence of enforcement of them (generally) seems to be a presumption that a significant portion of the population will behave dishonestly with at least some of them.
A better announcement in May, given the circumstances, science, and social science, would have been to say “vaccinated people do not need to wear masks to limit transmission because they are at low risk of transmission, but businesses and state and local governments should do what they can to ensure that unvaccinated people continue to wear masks in indoor public spaces, at least until everyone who wants to get vaccinated has been able to do so.”
1 Like
generally concur on the clearer wording, ucb, but the common sense issue still arises: if masks are recommended indoors, how does that square with indoor eating/drinking establishments?
Also excellent, but note this is not ‘science’, but an abundance of caution of unknown future possibilities, which may or may not occur.
@ucbalumnus I definitely don’t disagree with the second paragraph - that would have been better guidance. Again, I think it is sad that the latter half needed to be said - that it requires others to ensure that unvaccinated, in this case, follow the new rule.
I like to think that your first paragraph reflects our desire to defend against the bad instincts of a minority, rather than a majority of the populace, but, point taken.
My point is that there’s no science, at the time, that said “vaccinated are safe without masks”. We didn’t know that. We presumed. Science isn’t and can’t be based on presumptions.
3 Likes
The common sense recommendation is that unvaccinated people should avoid eating and drinking in indoor restaurants and bars. (Not that everyone follows common sense in this case, though…)
Of course; and that also applies to the vaxxed-immuocomprised who might have low titers. But note your suggested policy wording (for the CDC) does not recommend that the un-vaxxed refrain from indoor dining.
Such people are probably being extra-careful beyond any CDC or other recommendations anyway.
Since dining (the actual eating or drinking) is not possible with masks on, a recommendation for the unvaccinated to keep masks on in indoor public spaces includes recommending them to avoid indoor dining.
1 Like
Not sure if this was posted. A mAb combo has been recently authorized (EUA) as a post-exposure prophylaxis for certain at risk groups.
https://www.phe.gov/emergency/events/COVID19/investigation-MCM/cas_imd/Pages/update-30July2021.aspx
Not a panacea by any means, and likely costs a small fortune.
Has anyone seen research on how long a vaccinated person who contracts Covid and is mildly symptomatic (congestion and mild fatigue) is contagious? I’ve seen 10-14 days after start of symptoms but wondering if some number/timing of negative tests can be more conclusively used to assess whether the individual is shedding virus (sufficient to test positive) and therefore able to transmit. Thanks!
I haven’t seen any data like that, and I don’t think there is a conclusion that all vaccinated people spread virus should they become infected. Time (and more studies) will tell.
1 Like
See post #3339 of this thread: Inside Medicine. What Are You Seeing? [COVID-19 medical news] - #3339 by ucbalumnus
In this AZ HEROES study tracking first responders who were tested weekly regardless of whether or not they had symptoms:
- Breakthrough infections occurred at a much lower rate than unvaccinated infections (91% vaccine effectiveness for fully vaccinated).
- For breakthrough infections, compared to unvaccinated infections:
- Lower viral load.
- Fewer days viral RNA detection (2.7 versus 8.9).
- Less likely to have detectable viral RNA for >1 week (25.0% versus 72.4%).
- Less likely to have fever (25.0% versus 63.1%).
- Fewer days of symptoms (10.3 versus 16.7).
- Fewer days spent sick in bed (1.5 versus 3.8).
6 Likes
We know that even an asymptomatic but infected person can spread the virus. If a vaccinated person is symptomatic, it’s probably safe to assume the virus has overwhelmed the immune system even with the help of the vaccine, so that the person is contagious. Whether or not that person is less contagious than a similarly symptomatic but unvaccinated person isn’t known, even though CDC cited the study that the two may have the similar amount of viral load.
Right. My question is whether there is some scientific way to know when a person is no longer contagious and I was wondering whether some testing regimen could be used as a proxy for ability to transmit rather than the 10-14 days post onset of symptoms rule of thumb.
ETA - this follows the Michael Mina concept that using a (daily) rapid testing protocol could stop the spread if those who tested positive at their morning test would then isolate.
1 Like
Even for the earlier and less contagious variants, some countries found the data to be inconsistent so they implemented quarantines of different lengths for the infected and suspected to be infected. We understood the delta variant even less.
I also follow Michael Mina who has been beating the drum for better testing for 18 months now. He says we definitely have the technology to have instant lick a strip tests that should be very low cost. Sad that we haven’t made much progress on testing, although there are OTC rapid tests available at pharmacies now, such as Abbott’s binax now. It’s about $25 for two tests and one could conceivably do that daily until they aren’t positive anymore as a possible proxy for contagiousness. (But people could not be contagious before they stop showing positives on an antigen based rapid test)
2 Likes
Thanks @Mwfan1921 - that is exactly the thinking. If using that approach, I have less concern with the prospect that they could not be contagious before they stop showing positives than the opposite where they could still be contagious after they stop showing positives - ie start showing negatives. Would your research indicate that using the Abbott test with this approach (a sufficient number of times to avoid false results) be a reasonable strategy to try to avoid transmission?
It seems like it’s not a crazy approach…but I have no research! Maybe tweet/contact Michael Mina and ask him?
1 Like