Meanwhile, the CDC lowered quarantine time to 5 days, which no scientific explanation. Walensky said, “It really had a lot to do with what we thought people would be able to tolerate.”
"trust the science"
Another side note. I am all for using science to make decisions. But whenever I hear anyone, the CDC, Dr. Fauci and others make the claim to trust the Science I am reminded of Pennsylvania's former secretary of Health, Richard/Rachel Levine. He/She is now the United Sates Assistant Secretary for Health. These same people sure didn't trust the science when it came to people being either male or female.
nett wrote: ↑Thu Dec 30, 2021 10:33 am
Meanwhile, the CDC lowered quarantine time to 5 days, which no scientific explanation. Walensky said, “It really had a lot to do with what we thought people would be able to tolerate.”
"trust the science"
Sounds like the CDC is being pragmatic here.
As your post noted, long quarantines are very disruptive to employees and employers ( I would agree). In fact, the CDC found that 2/3 of people were not quarantining the full 10 days anyway, and since the greatest risk of viral spread is finished after five days of no symptoms, they chose to relax the standard a bit in the hopes of better compliance.
Sounds like the right adjustment to me...and as an employer, I'm glad for the change.
nett wrote: ↑Thu Dec 30, 2021 10:33 am
Meanwhile, the CDC lowered quarantine time to 5 days, which no scientific explanation. Walensky said, “It really had a lot to do with what we thought people would be able to tolerate.”
"trust the science"
Sounds like the CDC is being pragmatic here.
As your post noted, long quarantines are very disruptive to employees and employers ( I would agree). In fact, the CDC found that 2/3 of people were not quarantining the full 10 days anyway, and since the greatest risk of viral spread is finished after five days of no symptoms, they chose to relax the standard a bit.
Sounds like the right adjustment to me...and as an employer, I'm glad for the change.
Either, the science justified a specific quarantine period or it didn't.
nett wrote: ↑Thu Dec 30, 2021 10:33 am
Meanwhile, the CDC lowered quarantine time to 5 days, which no scientific explanation. Walensky said, “It really had a lot to do with what we thought people would be able to tolerate.”
"trust the science"
Sounds like the CDC is being pragmatic here.
As your post noted, long quarantines are very disruptive to employees and employers ( I would agree). In fact, the CDC found that 2/3 of people were not quarantining the full 10 days anyway, and since the greatest risk of viral spread is finished after five days of no symptoms, they chose to relax the standard a bit.
Sounds like the right adjustment to me...and as an employer, I'm glad for the change.
Either, the science justified a specific quarantine period or it didn't.
I disagree on two fronts.
First, good science is not a fixed set of rules and conclusions - it learns as it goes...and when faced with compelling new evidence it adapts to the best new information it has available.
Second, public health entities like the CDC have to balance both science and human behavior when considering what might result in the greatest health and wellbeing for a given population. It learns as it goes both scientifically and behaviorally.
Frankly, I want to see the CDC adjust their recommendations to the data and the times.
Dan Z wrote: ↑Thu Dec 30, 2021 11:30 am
I disagree on two fronts.
First, good science is not a fixed set of rules and conclusions - it learns as it goes...and when faced with compelling new evidence it adapts to the best new information it has available.
Second, public health entities like the CDC have to balance both science and human behavior when considering what might result in the greatest health and wellbeing for a given population. It learns as it goes both scientifically and behaviorally.
Frankly, I want to see the CDC adjust their recommendations to the data and the times.
Walensky didn't mention any hard data to back up the change. She basically admitted this change is at the behest of companies that are now struggling to maintain staffing.
Dan Z wrote: ↑Thu Dec 30, 2021 11:30 am
I disagree on two fronts.
First, good science is not a fixed set of rules and conclusions - it learns as it goes...and when faced with compelling new evidence it adapts to the best new information it has available.
Second, public health entities like the CDC have to balance both science and human behavior when considering what might result in the greatest health and wellbeing for a given population. It learns as it goes both scientifically and behaviorally.
Frankly, I want to see the CDC adjust their recommendations to the data and the times.
Walensky didn't mention any hard data to back up the change. She basically admitted this change is at the behest of companies that are now struggling to maintain staffing.
Like is said - I think it is a pragmatic change. They are trying to find a guideline that is relatively safe and at the same time is likely to be followed. I think most government agencies are dealing with the fact that policies that may have worked in the early days of the pandemic do not necessarily work two years in. In relationship to COVID, public health policy needs to shift from pandemic-mode to endemic-mode - and that is what is occurring.
Dan Z wrote: ↑Thu Dec 30, 2021 11:30 am
I disagree on two fronts.
First, good science is not a fixed set of rules and conclusions - it learns as it goes...and when faced with compelling new evidence it adapts to the best new information it has available.
Second, public health entities like the CDC have to balance both science and human behavior when considering what might result in the greatest health and wellbeing for a given population. It learns as it goes both scientifically and behaviorally.
Frankly, I want to see the CDC adjust their recommendations to the data and the times.
Walensky didn't mention any hard data to back up the change. She basically admitted this change is at the behest of companies that are now struggling to maintain staffing.
Like is said - I think it is a pragmatic change. They are trying to find a guideline that is relatively safe and at the same time is likely to be followed. I think most government agencies are dealing with the fact that policies that may have worked in the early days of the pandemic do not necessarily work two years in. In relationship to COVID, public health policy needs to shift from pandemic-mode to endemic-mode - and that is what is occurring.
Which is why in Canada they are probably going to allow health workers who test positive to remain on the job.
This to alleviate health worker shortages at least partially caused because of firing health workers who refused to get vaccinated.
Ken wrote: ↑Mon Dec 27, 2021 12:34 pm
Florida case counts are up 815% in the past week with the advent of omicron. Case counts have gone near vertical and are on target to pass their all-time highs in a couple of days. Hospitalizations are starting to trend upwards as well. But it is too soon to see if death counts will also rise as well. But it hardly seems like Florida is out of the woods yet.
Since Monday, Florida has dropped from 13th to 14th in the rankings, for what it's worth.
Here's where yesterday's new Covid deaths came from. My state of Pennsylvania is up there at the top. My guess is that it may have to do with reporting catching up after the holiday weekend.
If you look at the numbers, just like nationally, we are seeing the biggest spike of reported cases ever, while our daily new deaths have yet to show any big upward trend. Although we will likely see some kind of increase soon.
As your post noted, long quarantines are very disruptive to employees and employers ( I would agree). In fact, the CDC found that 2/3 of people were not quarantining the full 10 days anyway, and since the greatest risk of viral spread is finished after five days of no symptoms, they chose to relax the standard a bit.
Sounds like the right adjustment to me...and as an employer, I'm glad for the change.
Either, the science justified a specific quarantine period or it didn't.
I disagree on two fronts.
First, good science is not a fixed set of rules and conclusions - it learns as it goes...and when faced with compelling new evidence it adapts to the best new information it has available.
Second, public health entities like the CDC have to balance both science and human behavior when considering what might result in the greatest health and wellbeing for a given population. It learns as it goes both scientifically and behaviorally.
Frankly, I want to see the CDC adjust their recommendations to the data and the times.
The end of July 2021. I was very fatigued unusually I knew something was wrong. Had not heard of recent outbreaks of covid in our area. But I chose to go get a covid test. This was after 4 days of symptoms. The test came back negative. This meant I should be able to go into work. However I learned not to trust the test from everything I'd read. I was so extremely fatigued after the test and ran a fever of 101, and had body aches. I called my doctor and he ended up wanting me to come in upon knowing I tested negative for covid. He diagnosed me with bronchitis although I had absolutely no cough he heard it in my chest. So he ordered a chest x-ray. I never got the results he thought he called to tell me the chest x-ray showed that I had covid. It's a good thing I took it upon myself to stay home because of science was saying I didn't have covid for the first 13 days, but in reality I could have been spreading it all over the place had I not decided to quarantine myself
Valerie wrote: ↑Thu Dec 30, 2021 1:51 pmI was so extremely fatigued after the test and ran a fever of 101, and had body aches. I called my doctor and he ended up wanting me to come in upon knowing I tested negative for covid.
I'm glad you used wisdom and stayed home. There are a variety of things that could cause fever of a 101, and I don't know of any scientist, government agency, or employer who would recommed going into work if you are running a fever that high.
