CDC mask announcement (a new thread)

[Zebra]

43 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

I'm as pro-mask and pro-vaccine as anyone, and I'm also having a bit of a problem understanding the extent of the backlash against the CDC guidance.

Sure I get it for immune compromised people (I'm one of those, FWIW) and for people who for whatever sound medical reason can't be vaccinated. For people in that group it would absolutely be better if the mask mandate had been left in place until most areas had much higher percentages of vaccinated people.

And I totally get it about kids.

And those two categories are certainly NOT insignificant.

But still . . I can't fully wrap my head around the extent of the backlash. Perhaps I'm being naive in trusting the studies that are showing how very effective the vaccines are for most people, and how well they're preventing transmission. The arguments against dropping the mask mandate now to me mostly seem pretty circular. I'll almost certainly continue to mask in public, but I can't get too worked up over the mandate being dropped now.

I do not understand the backlash either.

When I am fully vaxxed, I am going to ditch my mask exactly where the CDC says I can.    I cannot, for the life of me, understand why I would be judged so harshly for believing the CDC.

Yep, people are going to lie about being vaxxed.    I feel comfortable mostly ditching my mask anyway.    And if you don't feel comfortable, continue to wear a mask.    But don't judge me, or assume things about me just because I am comfortable following the advice of the CDC.

 

[KeriJ]

58 minutes ago, Danae said:

It makes sense if you think about populations rather than individuals.  Ultimately the only thing that is going to end the pandemic is driving the virus levels down to where there isn’t uncontrolled spread.  Vaccinations are a tool to accomplish that.  Masks are a tool to accomplish that. The CDC is betting that vaccinations are effective enough that the additional spread reduction from masking isn’t needed.  Hopefully they’re right.

 

It just seems like requiring masks for vaccinated people only lessens confidence in the vaccines.

[MEmama]

2 minutes ago, KeriJ said:

It just seems like requiring masks for vaccinated people only lessens confidence in the vaccines.

I think that might be true for people who don’t understand how vaccines work or what their purpose is.

 

[Ditto]

I am happy to see this thread.   I was very disappointed to see the updated CDC masking guidelines and even more disappointed that my state has decided to drop the mask mandate as well as most of the social distancing rules.   While my family is fully vaccinated we will continue to double mask everywhere.   My thinking is that the vaccine, while wonderful, is just one layer of protection against Covid.  Given that just under 40% of my state is fully vaccinated and the virus numbers are continuing to rise,  that one layer of protection from the vaccine isn't enough.  We can increase our protection by double masking and social distance.    If the vaccination numbers were much higher and the virus numbers were much lower (and dropping) then I may feel more comfortable not masking, but nothing I have seen supports not masking at this point.  

Not masking is also relying heavily on honesty and I just don't trust people to be honest about most things and I certainly don't expect them to be about being vaccinated.   To me, the group that is most likely to mask is going to be most likely to be vaccinated.   The group most likely to ditch the mask asap is the group most likely not to vaccinate.  Now whether that is accurate or not, I don't know.  But it is how I feel. 

The short version: nothing changes at all for my fully vaccinated family. 

[KeriJ]

1 hour ago, regentrude said:

But it's not just about protecting the vaccinated folks! I don't want the 75% of people in my area who aren't vaxxed to walk around maskless and infect one another, filling up the hospital (just a few months ago, we had a situation where they couldn't find a bed for a patient with brain injury in our entire state) and giving the virus breeding ground to mutate to a form against the vaccine is not effective. 

I trust that the vaccine will protect me to a large degree. But it won't protect me against the larger ramifications of an outbreak in the unvaccinated population. It's not just about me as an individual; we are connected as a community,  and people's actions affect others. That's a concept that seems terribly hard to understand for many, and that is disheartening. 

The CDC never said unvaccinated people should walk around maskless. We are projecting what we think will happen.  They are responsible for reporting science and science says vaccinated people won't spread the virus. 

[happi duck]

5 minutes ago, Zebra said:

I do not understand the backlash either.

When I am fully vaxxed, I am going to ditch my mask exactly where the CDC says I can.    I cannot, for the life of me, understand why I would be judged so harshly for believing the CDC.

Yep, people are going to lie about being vaxxed.    I feel comfortable mostly ditching my mask anyway.    And if you don't feel comfortable, continue to wear a mask.    But don't judge me, or assume things about me just because I am comfortable following the advice of the CDC.

 

Nothing I've read on the board suggests that anyone will judge someone not wearing a mask.

I don't understand all these people saying they don't understand!

Our discussion is about easing up too soon and in a way that makes it simple for people who can spread the virus to be unmasked.

[happi duck]

2 minutes ago, KeriJ said:

The CDC never said unvaccinated people should walk around maskless. We are projecting what we think will happen.  They are responsible for reporting science and science says vaccinated people won't spread the virus. 

Yep...comprehended that part *however* in practice unvaccinated people will go unmasked.  I think a place tasked with disease control should take their audience into account.

[AbcdeDooDah]

1 hour ago, happi duck said:

Nothing I've read on the board suggests that anyone will judge someone not wearing a mask.

I don't understand all these people saying they don't understand!

Our discussion is about easing up too soon and in a way that makes it simple for people who can spread the virus to be unmasked.

Not everyone who is unvaxxed and maskless can/will spread the virus. Vaccination is not the only route to herd immunity.

Edited May 16, 2021 by AbcdeDooDah

[kokotg]

I guess I don't get why "this will make things less safe for our unvaccinated kids" is so hard to understand. I'm not outraged about it or anything. I just think it's a bad idea and that it's going to make life harder in the short term for my 8 year old and me. 

[regentrude]

7 minutes ago, KeriJ said:

The CDC never said unvaccinated people should walk around maskless. We are projecting what we think will happen.  They are responsible for reporting science and science says vaccinated people won't spread the virus. 

But this is exactly what will happen. 

After the human behavior I have seen throughout the pandemic, I cannot imagine otherwise.

[regentrude]

16 minutes ago, KeriJ said:

It just seems like requiring masks for vaccinated people only lessens confidence in the vaccines.

That is the rationale behind the decision. It's a gamble that this will increase vaccination rates.

Unfortunately,  I am so thoroughly disillusioned about people that I fear it will backfire. 

[kokotg]

1 minute ago, regentrude said:

But this is exactly what will happen. 

After the human behavior I have seen throughout the pandemic, I cannot imagine otherwise.

yes. on this very board there are multiple people who have said that the CDC announcement will (or would, if they had younger kids) cause them to allow their unvaccinated kids to stop wearing masks. 

[KeriJ]

1 minute ago, regentrude said:

But this is exactly what will happen. 

After the human behavior I have seen throughout the pandemic, I cannot imagine otherwise.

But facts are important.  Without being factual,  you lose credibility.  The CDC is reporting factual guidelines.  

[regentrude]

13 minutes ago, MEmama said:

I think that might be true for people who don’t understand how vaccines work or what their purpose is.

Judging from the rumors and misinformation,  their number is huge. 

[kokotg]

Just now, KeriJ said:

But facts are important.  Without being factual,  you lose credibility.  The CDC is reporting factual guidelines.  

You can also be factual about people's tendency to be dishonest. 

[pinball]

2 hours ago, Spy Car said:

No, I assume that anti-vaxers and anti-maskers largely form one cohort and they will cheat the requirement to mask because they are indifferent to human life and entirely unethical.

Many (most) vaxed people will continue to mask because we know that's it is better public health policy to mask until everyone has access to vaccines and the time for the vaccines to take hold.

It's simple.

Bill

 

 

19 minutes ago, Zebra said:

I do not understand the backlash either.

When I am fully vaxxed, I am going to ditch my mask exactly where the CDC says I can.    I cannot, for the life of me, understand why I would be judged so harshly for believing the CDC.

Yep, people are going to lie about being vaxxed.    I feel comfortable mostly ditching my mask anyway.    And if you don't feel comfortable, continue to wear a mask.    But don't judge me, or assume things about me just because I am comfortable following the advice of the CDC.

 

 

11 minutes ago, happi duck said:

Nothing I've read on the board suggests that anyone will judge someone not wearing a mask.

I don't understand all these people saying they don't understand!

Our discussion is about easing up too soon and in a way that makes it simple for people who can spread the virus to be unmasked.

So Bill ISN’T judging antimaskers as “indifferent to human life and entirely unethical?”

Ummmm...is the light getting dimmer?

[regentrude]

1 minute ago, KeriJ said:

But facts are important.  Without being factual,  you lose credibility.  The CDC is reporting factual guidelines.  

There are facts and there are guidelines for public policy. These are not the same. 

The fact " the risk that unmasked vaccinated persons transmit the virus is extremely low" and the public policy rrecommendation " mask mandates  should no longer apply to vaccinated persons" are two different things.

[Faith-manor]

1 hour ago, regentrude said:

But it's not just about protecting the vaccinated folks! I don't want the 75% of people in my area who aren't vaxxed to walk around maskless and infect one another, filling up the hospital (just a few months ago, we had a situation where they couldn't find a bed for a patient with brain injury in our entire state) and giving the virus breeding ground to mutate to a form against the vaccine is not effective. 

I trust that the vaccine will protect me to a large degree. But it won't protect me against the larger ramifications of an outbreak in the unvaccinated population. It's not just about me as an individual; we are connected as a community,  and people's actions affect others. That's a concept that seems terribly hard to understand for many, and that is disheartening. 

This, and my county has no hospitals with ICU's and respiratory therapists. So we turf all of our fallen to the city hospitals in other counties further overwhelming them. It is positively insane, and frankly, just a gross way of thinking, but people her feel very entitled to spread disease and demand that some other hospital system suffer the consequences. It makes my head spin!

[Wheres Toto]

9 minutes ago, regentrude said:

But this is exactly what will happen. 

After the human behavior I have seen throughout the pandemic, I cannot imagine otherwise.

Seriously, how can anyone who has lived in the US for the past year have any illusions about how many people are likely to be total a$$holes, ditch the masks first chance they get, and lie about it if they need to?   People have shown us from the very beginning of this that they are NOT willing to do the right thing, NOT willing to follow mandates even when it's completely visible that they are blowing them off (parties, large gatherings, masks, etc), so why should we believe that now that it's been made super easy for them to lie and blow off something they've been b****ing about from the beginning, they won't do so?  

I really think this is going to bite us in the ass.  

Oh yeah, and one reason having had Covid isn't really taken into account for herd immunity is we have no idea how long that immunity is going to last, and for quite a few people it doesn't seem to be very long at all.   There have been more than a few cases of people getting covid twice.   Whereas, the vaccine they are still tracking the people who participated in the trials so we should at least have some warning when immunity begins to wane. 

AND, even a vaccine that is 95% effective can have quite a few break-through cases if spread is running rampant.  I keep shaking my head when people act like 1% or 5% is such a small number of people.  I have over 100 students at my tiny little homeschool business.  A condition that would effect 5 of them seems like an awful lot to me. 

[lewelma]

We have the opposite problem. The government is trying to figure out how to reopen the borders, and there is no way around it, we will go from no cases to some, possibly many cases. How do you make the decision to let people die? When do you figure we have enough vaccinated? How do you rank the economy vs health when health so far has been prioritized? Where is the balance and can we all even close to agree? They are talking about putting IN indoor mask mandates *after* 70% vaccinated when the reopen the country because they simply have no idea how many cases we could get -- how good the vaccine will be against the variants. Australia and NZ will be 2 very interesting case studies about how cases spread with a population on the edge of herd immunity but not making it. Will there be pockets of unvaccinated people where it spreads or are the antivaxers spread out? Will they cause it to fly throughout the vaccinated population at a 5% rate? How will people here respond to an *increased* risk upon reopening? And not a small increased risk.  Basically, an infinitely increased risk because we are currently at zero.  Strange times are coming for us. And I'm hoping Jacinda Ardern can guide the country through the fear and confusion like she has done in the past. As I have said before, no country gets off unscathed. 

[whitestavern]

Idk, as soon as we heard there were Covid cases in the US (before any suggestions about masks) we were wearing N95s to protect ourselves. I never had much confidence that the masks most everyone else wore were protecting me. So we wear N95s.  For those who are concerned about their unvaccinated children, that would be my suggestion. Also, if we are to believe the “science,” then any store runs should be safe as you wouldn’t be in close quarters with anyone for 15 minutes. One would assume Unvaxxed kids wouldn’t be spending a lot of extended time indoors with crowds, even if they are all masked. It might not be ideal but i would think it’d be pretty effective. 

[regentrude]

2 minutes ago, whitestavern said:

One would assume Unvaxxed kids wouldn’t be spending a lot of extended time indoors with crowds, even if they are all masked.

But they are. It's called "school"

[AbcdeDooDah]

3 minutes ago, Wheres Toto said:

 

Oh yeah, and one reason having had Covid isn't really taken into account for herd immunity is we have no idea how long that immunity is going to last, and for quite a few people it doesn't seem to be very long at all.   There have been more than a few cases of people getting covid twice.   Whereas, the vaccine they are still tracking the people who participated in the trials so we should at least have some warning when immunity begins to wane. 

 

We have no idea how long immunity from the vax will last, either. That's why they're talking about boosters already. I can tell you that 100% of the people I personally know who have gotten vaxxed says they will not get a booster. The physical and financial cost was too much and they won't do it again. 

 

[regentrude]

Just now, AbcdeDooDah said:

I can tell you that 100% of the people I personally know who have gotten vaxxed says they will not get a booster. The physical and financial cost was too much and they won't do it again. 

 

Everyone I know who has gotten vaccinated will get the booster. 

What  financial cost are you referring to? 

[AbcdeDooDah]

Just now, regentrude said:

Everyone I know who has gotten vaccinated will get the booster. 

What  financial cost are you referring to? 

Lost days of work. Multiply that annually, it's huge.

[Wheres Toto]

5 minutes ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

We have no idea how long immunity from the vax will last, either. That's why they're talking about boosters already. I can tell you that 100% of the people I personally know who have gotten vaxxed says they will not get a booster. The physical and financial cost was too much and they won't do it again. 

 

We know it's at least 6 months and we'll know when it starts to wane since people are being tracked.  There is no way to know if natural immunity is waning until someone gets sick.  

Everyone I know realizes a booster is likely to be necessary, possibly even annually, and is willing to get it.  Once vaccines were widely available, people scheduled them so they could avoid missing much work.   I have a lot of friends and family in food service or retail who had a little more of a challenge with that but they were able to schedule at least one or two days off after their vaccines. 

[regentrude]

4 minutes ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

Lost days of work. Multiply that annually, it's huge.

But nothing compared to weeks or months of sickness.

I don't know anybody who had to take off more than a day post vaccine. Feeling off for longer, sure, but not incapacitated. Next time, I will schedule my shot for a Friday. Most folks I know had no issues working the following day.

Edited May 16, 2021 by regentrude

[AbcdeDooDah]

Just now, Wheres Toto said:

We know it's at least 6 months and we'll know when it starts to wane since people are being tracked.  There is no way to know if natural immunity is waning until someone gets sick.  

Everyone I know realizes a booster is likely to be necessary, possibly even annually, and is willing to get it.  Once vaccines were widely available, people scheduled them so they could avoid missing much work.   I have a lot of friends and family in food service or retail who had a little more of a challenge with that but they were able to schedule at least one or two days off after their vaccines. 

Giving blood is also a way to track waning immunity. 

That's great for your friends. Much of the country is not in that position and a missed day or two can be financially devastating. 

[Lady Florida.]

45 minutes ago, KeriJ said:

The CDC never said unvaccinated people should walk around maskless. We are projecting what we think will happen.  They are responsible for reporting science and science says vaccinated people won't spread the virus. 

And they (the CDC) shouldn't be faulted for reporting science, which is what so many people are criticizing them for doing. Holding back scientific information and not reporting results of valid studies is what they were criticized for doing just a year ago. 

44 minutes ago, happi duck said:

 

I don't understand all these people saying they don't understand!

 

What some of us don't understand is the backlash against a scientific organization making recommendations based on science. 

32 minutes ago, KeriJ said:

But facts are important.  Without being factual,  you lose credibility.  The CDC is reporting factual guidelines.  

Exactly.

30 minutes ago, kokotg said:

You can also be factual about people's tendency to be dishonest. 

No one is denying that some people will be dishonest. Many of us expect it will happen just as those who were dishonest about having "medical reasons" for not wearing masks happened. What we're concerned about is that people want the CDC to ignore the science and not make recommendations based on science and current accepted studies when we wanted exactly the opposite from them a year ago.

Edited May 16, 2021 by Lady Florida.

[AbcdeDooDah]

2 minutes ago, regentrude said:

But nothing compared to weeks or months of sickness.

I don't know anybody who had to take off more than a day post vaccine. Feeling off for longer, sure, but not incapacitated. Next time, I will schedule my shot for a Friday. Most folks I know had no issues working the following day.

See, I thought the argument was that we needed to mask because a large number of people never knew they had it and could spread it. Weeks and months of sickness is not the norm.

[whitestavern]

15 minutes ago, regentrude said:

Everyone I know who has gotten vaccinated will get the booster. 

What  financial cost are you referring to? 

Valid point. I was speaking to this audience, the majority of which are homeschoolers. I and many of my colleagues have been working in offices for the last year+. Again, I choose to use the best mask to protect myself. 

[Sneezyone]

1 hour ago, KeriJ said:

The CDC never said unvaccinated people should walk around maskless. We are projecting what we think will happen.  They are responsible for reporting science and science says vaccinated people won't spread the virus. 

That’s how unvaccinated people in Virginia are interpreting both the CDC guidance and Governor’s order. I have seen the triumphant posts in local forums. Unvaccinated people are not at all shy about declaring their intention to do exactly this. All they care about is that they are no longer required to mask.

Public health guidance should be based not only on the science but the realities of advising the public at large. The original guidance to NOT buy/use masks was similarly influenced by an effort to prevent panic buying of necessary medical supplies. It’s a balancing act.

In giving the CDC free reign, the Biden administration has actually gone too far in the other direction, not allowing themselves to temper ADVICE with the realities of managing public health. States/businesses got no heads up about how this would impact vax efforts. VA is over 50% vaxed but there’s now zero incentive to get to 70%.This also allowed the CDC to make the announcement without having any updated guidance available for schools.

What the science says is only one piece of the puzzle.

Edited May 16, 2021 by Sneezyone

[happi duck]

59 minutes ago, pinball said:

 

 

So Bill ISN’T judging antimaskers as “indifferent to human life and entirely unethical?”

Ummmm...is the light getting dimmer?

"Anti-masker" and "someone not wearing a mask" are two different things.

A fully vaccinated person not wearing a mask within current guidelines is not an anti-masker.

Does that clarify?

[kokotg]

1 hour ago, Lady Florida. said:

 

No one is denying that some people will be dishonest. Many of us expect it will happen just as those who were dishonest about having "medical reasons" for not wearing masks happened. What we're concerned about is that people want the CDC to ignore the science and not make recommendations based on science and current accepted studies when we wanted exactly the opposite from them a year ago.

I disagree that taking human behavior into account when making recommendations=ignoring the science. The previous recommendations already made it clear that vaccinated people are unlikely to transmit the virus by saying that indoor household gatherings of vaccinated people were fine (ETA: I believe it said low risk unvaccinated people from one household were also fine at said gatherings. I.e. the idea was that you don't want a bunch of unvaccinated people getting together). There are plenty of way to acknowledge both the reality that vaccinated people are unlikely to transmit and the difficulties posed by enforcement. Tying relaxing mask recommendations to a certain level of community spread or to a certain percent vaccinated for example. No one is suggesting they lie about transmission. Given that the new guidelines will make my 8 year old both less safe and less confident in navigating the world, I wish they had done that. I rate his safety and confidence higher than people being able to go without a mask in indoor public spaces. They're betting that this will do more good than harm, and I certainly hope they're right, but I have my doubts.

Edited May 16, 2021 by kokotg

[KSera]

1 hour ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

No everyone who is unvaxxed and maskless can/will spread the virus. Vaccination is not the only route to herd immunity.

Which risks everyone else, as the more spread we have, the more likely a variant will emerge which evades the vaccines, plus the strain on the health care system that effects everyone. So yeah, they can and will do that, but it’s beyond frustrating because that means those people are just going to prolong this pandemic that we now have the means to get under control. 

1 hour ago, KeriJ said:

But facts are important.  Without being factual,  you lose credibility.  The CDC is reporting factual guidelines.  

Facts are important and they could have reported facts at the same time they used the facts to inform a different kind of guideline that wouldn’t have been as risky to those not yet vaccinated (as I keep saying, there are lots of adults still waiting for their second shots, and then there are all the kids). They could have said they since those who are vaccinated can largely remove their masks, they will lift the mask recommendation as soon as a certain vaccine benchmark and/or case number threshold is reached. 

[Sneezyone]

To clarify, I don’t think anyone is suggesting that the CDC should have shaded its scientific conclusions. Their findings are their findings. From a communications perspective, however, their guidance (or the lack thereof) and their inability to explain how states, businesses and schools should/could interpret and apply those findings is a disaster.

I can understand why states/localities with no mandates might find this change insignificant, but in high compliance areas like mine, the shift has been dramatic and disconcerting. We’re now dealing with vocal/in your face rejection of the guidance. I was starting to feel really good about being out and about because our rates have come down dramatically. But folks are kidding themselves if they think the rates will stay low with neither carrot nor stick (which is what we have now) preventing transmission.

My son is still a month away from full vax status and I took him on Day 2. I was excited to let him start joining things in person but that’s now at least a month off. How much longer for his unvaccinated peers and younger kids? It seems incredibly unfair to them when they’ve sacrificed so much already. It feels like the CDC made no attempt whatsoever to wrestle with the free rider problem.

Edited May 16, 2021 by Sneezyone

[AbcdeDooDah]

3 minutes ago, KSera said:

Which risks everyone else, as the more spread we have, the more likely a variant will emerge which evades the vaccines, plus the strain on the health care system that effects everyone. So yeah, they can and will do that, but it’s beyond frustrating because that means those people are just going to prolong this pandemic that we now have the means to get under control. 

 

I'm referring to those who have already had it, not let 'er rip.

[happi duck]

1 hour ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

No everyone who is unvaxxed and maskless can/will spread the virus. Vaccination is not the only route to herd immunity.

Is this first word supposed to be "no" or "not"?

[kokotg]

I'll say that I just went to Aldi and pretty much everyone was masked, which was good to see. It will be interesting to see if, as some people have suggested, mask behavior remains largely unchanged, with areas that where people are already good about masking staying that way. I'm definitely aware that mask mandates aren't the only thing that make people choose to mask, since I live in an area that has never had one but still has been good about masking. We'll see. I'm glad we'll be traveling in the northeast this summer instead of some other parts of the country. 

[AbcdeDooDah]

Just now, happi duck said:

Is this first word supposed to be "no" or "not"?

Thank you. Supposed to say not. 

[KeriJ]

1 hour ago, Lady Florida. said:

And they (the CDC) shouldn't be faulted for reporting science, which is what so many people are criticizing them for doing. Holding back scientific information and not reporting results of valid studies is what they were criticized for doing just a year ago. 

What some of us don't understand is the backlash against a scientific organization making recommendations based on science. 

Exactly.

No one is denying that some people will be dishonest. Many of us expect it will happen just as those who were dishonest about having "medical reasons" for not wearing masks happened. What we're concerned about is that people want the CDC to ignore the science and not make recommendations based on science and current accepted studies when we wanted exactly the opposite from them a year ago.

All of this.

[pinball]

45 minutes ago, happi duck said:

"Anti-masker" and "someone not wearing a mask" are two different things.

A fully vaccinated person not wearing a mask within current guidelines is not an anti-masker.

Does that clarify?

No, not at all.

there is no way of knowing which is which while one is out and about and encountering the NonMasked.

 

 

[barnwife]

2 hours ago, Zebra said:

But don't judge me, or assume things about me just because I am comfortable following the advice of the CDC.

 

Well, I won't judge you, but I absolutely will assume you are an unvaxxed person and give you plenty of space/avoid you. Why? Because, sadly, that group of people exists . And, of course, they pose a higher risk to my unvaxxed young children. So, yes, I will assume things about you, TYVM, in order to protect my children more. (FWIW, I do normally try to assume the best of intentions about people. But...nope, nope, nope to doing that about this.)

Don't like that? Wear a mask! In these times, wearing a mask is an easy way to show others you care. 

[KSera]

21 minutes ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

Thank you. Supposed to say not. 

Ah. That changes the meaning a lot. Thanks @happi duck for pointing that out. I read it as “No, everyone”

[Terabith]

1 hour ago, whitestavern said:

Idk, as soon as we heard there were Covid cases in the US (before any suggestions about masks) we were wearing N95s to protect ourselves. I never had much confidence that the masks most everyone else wore were protecting me. So we wear N95s.  For those who are concerned about their unvaccinated children, that would be my suggestion. Also, if we are to believe the “science,” then any store runs should be safe as you wouldn’t be in close quarters with anyone for 15 minutes. One would assume Unvaxxed kids wouldn’t be spending a lot of extended time indoors with crowds, even if they are all masked. It might not be ideal but i would think it’d be pretty effective. 

N95 masks don't exist that fit young children.  There are some KN95s, but they aren't tested and there isn't the same accountability.  

What confuses me is the assumption that if vaccinations work, vaccinated people are basically bulletproof.  Even the mRNA vaccines, at 90-95% effective, leave 5-10% of the people vulnerable.  If the rate of the virus in the community is low, that's awesome!  Your chances of contracting covid are very low, between low community spread and a very good vaccine.  But if the rates in the community are high, 5-10% of the vaccinated population contracting covid results in a LOT of people getting covid.  A lot of vaccinated folks.  That doesn't even take into account variants or the less effective J&J.  Releasing the mask mandate feels ludicrous to me.  

[KungFuPanda]

This may be a dumb question to ask this late in the game, but are the vaccination percentages the percentage of the entire population that is vaccinated or are they the percentage of the vaccine eligible population that is vaccinated? 

[Corraleno]

1 hour ago, Lady Florida. said:

And they (the CDC) shouldn't be faulted for reporting science, which is what so many people are criticizing them for doing. Holding back scientific information and not reporting results of valid studies is what they were criticized for doing just a year ago. 

What some of us don't understand is the backlash against a scientific organization making recommendations based on science. 

Exactly.

No one is denying that some people will be dishonest. Many of us expect it will happen just as those who were dishonest about having "medical reasons" for not wearing masks happened. What we're concerned about is that people want the CDC to ignore the science and not make recommendations based on science and current accepted studies when we wanted exactly the opposite from them a year ago.

The CDC could also have "followed the science" by saying "Studies show that vaccinated people are very unlikely to carry or spread the virus, BUT since most Americans, including everyone under the age of 12, are still not vaccinated, AND we do not have a simple and accurate way to prove vaccination status, we therefore recommend that everyone continue to mask in indoor situations unless you are certain that everyone else in the group  is vaccinated."  

 

 

Edited May 16, 2021 by Corraleno

[kokotg]

Just now, KungFuPanda said:

This may be a dumb question to ask this late in the game, but are the vaccination percentages the percentage of the entire population that is vaccinated or are they the percentage of the vaccine eligible population that is vaccinated? 

I've seen it both ways.

[happi duck]

1 minute ago, KungFuPanda said:

This may be a dumb question to ask this late in the game, but are the vaccination percentages the percentage of the entire population that is vaccinated or are they the percentage of the vaccine eligible population that is vaccinated? 

I have wondered the same thing!

[Dmmetler]

1 hour ago, regentrude said:

But they are. It's called "school"

And child care, which a lot of families need to use over the summer. It's one reason why I am very concerned about the mask mandate being dropped in my county right as schools let out, because we'll then have a bunch of kids who had been in different schools grouped together as the school year applecart is upset in favor of the summer child care applecart. 

 

I'm working on my policies for summer, and I think I am going to require masks for everyone under 16, and request that parents continue to stay outside the room during lessons (they can hear either from outside or the indoor hallway, and we've been doing it that way all year) or wear masks in the studio. I only have one current student who is 17, and she's fully vaccinated (and was excited when she got her shot, because she's been doing grocery curbside delivery through the last year), and she's not in any of the group classes, so that would be keep masks required across the board, but hopefully send a message that my reason for requiring continued masking is that kids can't be vaccinated yet or are in the process of being so (my 12-15's would, at best, be fully vaccinated at about the end of June, which is halfway through the session. And that's if they got their first shot when eligibility opened). 

 

I am hoping that parents don't push back. I am allowed to set my own policies, but as long as masking was mandated indoors county-wide, I knew I'd get backing. Now, I'm not so sure, because I think we're going to be in a position of every instructor creating their own policies, so it is entirely likely that I will have some kids required to mask in piano lessons with me (1-1, with a fully vaccinated adult, so probably pretty low risk) and then going to dance class unmasked, with a much larger group of not able to be vaccinated yet kids. But in a building with shared HVAC, I just don't feel comfortable about kids not being masked yet. We've had a good year with excellent attendance, almost no one sick at all, and that was with masks and with most students attending in person school masked. I don't see a good reason to change that yet.