So far, in this pandemic, the self-sabotage of health policies may have reached its peak. The CDC announced yesterday that it has updated its recommendation to resume wearing masks, motivated by concerns about a slight increase in COVID-19 cases and Delta variant cases. Varensky reiterated that although most COVID transmission is between unvaccinated individuals,
“Information on Delta variants from several states and other countries indicates that in rare cases, some people who have been vaccinated with Delta variants may be contagious and spread the virus to other people. This new Science is worrying. Unfortunately, we need to update our recommendations.”
This is indeed some worrying new data, except that Varensky has never cited data from “several” states and countries that she refers to. Of course, none of the issues in the briefing asked her for clarification. The CDC website has not been updated to include these data or any subsequent press releases to specifically name these studies.
There are some Associated Press speculationAmong others, the CDC’s concerns are based on a China study published earlier this month. The study is currently unpublished and has not been peer-reviewed. It studied 126 samples and assumed transmissibility by finding that the viral load was 1,260 times higher. The study does not seem to consider or include information about the individual’s vaccination status, which vaccines they may have received, and it does not empirically link Delta’s transmissibility or infectivity to increased viral load-this is inferred.
We do know that there are currently multiple peer-reviewed studies that specifically track the spread of COVID-19 among vaccinated individuals.one learn, Released two days before the China report, tracked the use of Moderna vaccine by more than 100,000 people and calculated that the vaccine would reduce the infectivity by “at least 61%.” Again, this is contagious—the possibility that the vaccine will be passed on to you—not the effectiveness of the vaccine, which will deal with a reduction in the percentage of infections (we know that Hyundai and Pfizer have more than 90% of vaccines). Another article in the preprint, but it should be noted that it is an update of the previous paper, checking and collating the literature on the transmission of COVID-19 in vaccinated individuals.This Meta-analysis 33 studies show that, among other things,
“Evidence from two large home surveillance studies in the UK shows that single or full dose AstraZeneca (AZ) and Pfizer-BioNtech (PfBnT) vaccines can prevent the home spread of COVID-19 up to 54 days after vaccination. %. “
Many other included studies reported preventing transmission from 59% to 90%, depending on exposure and symptomatic and asymptomatic infections. Seven included studies found that compared with unvaccinated individuals, vaccinated individuals had a lower viral load.
So, let’s go back to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Director Varensky. One would hope that a grand statement that runs counter to all previous evidence on transmission, viral load, infection rates, and vaccines will be supported by important data and peer-reviewed publications.
Do not.
Dr. Varensky never showed her work, did not cite any sources, and asked reporters to investigate her claims. Obviously, very few people do this, and even so, AP can only find a small study without peer review, and they believe that these guidelines can be based on these studies. In the words of authority figures, facing overwhelming evidence to the contrary without clear evidence to the contrary is not science. It is faith.
This is not the first time that the director of the CDC has arbitrarily made a wide range of moral comments without providing any evidence, and this is hardly the first time that the press does not ask for such data at all.
At the White House briefing on July 16, Varensky was notorious statement We have an “unvaccinated pandemic” and point out that nearly 97% of COVID hospitalized patients are unvaccinated people. Followed by another one-unchallenged- statement Dr. Fauci said in “Meet the Media” that 99% of hospitalizations are caused by people who have not been vaccinated. Neither person supports how they arrived at these numbers, what are their methods, or what data they might actually quote (are we dealing with the most recent cases? All cases since vaccination? Are we Include all positive COVID cases, regardless of the cause? Hospitalization?).
Of course, the press is following the trend and trying to create or design their own methods to reach similar conclusions. The Associated Press stated in a statement article They performed calculations internally, and then went on to show basic division and subtraction to arrive at their numbers. Unfortunately, they and many other outlets calculated the percentage of vaccinated versus unvaccinated, but this is basically a useless number. These channels use it as a measure of risk, unless it is impossible-because it ignores the consideration of baseline risk. Reporters are not statisticians and should not pretend to be.The Washington Post provides more information for themselves data visualization, The way to describe them is as follows:
But this method includes information from the CDC, which is clearly related to 97% of the claims, but does not specify what or where the information is. There are no links, no data sets, and no references to CDC data-these data never seem to exist publicly.Even though power point According to the notes in Walensky’s July 16 briefing, there is no citation that might indicate where the data they used came from or what method they used to calculate the data.
Once again, Varensky wants us to believe her words, just faith, many people have done so.
The problem is that Varensky may be right. It is likely that there is or emerging evidence that Delta variants are also infectious in vaccinated individuals, or that 97% of the current COVID-19 hospitalization cases come from unvaccinated people. However, if there is no data and methodology, there is nothing to support her claims, and the ability to criticize these claims is zero. For example, does the 97% figure control the socio-economic determinants of health, or does it assume that everyone has equal access to health care? Does it take into account demographic differences and compare diseased individuals with healthy individuals within these demographic limits? Does this number include terminally ill patients who think they don’t need a vaccine?
When people want to process this type of data, these are just some very effective and expected considerations, but all we have to do is assumptions. We should have a blind trust and blind faith in those who refuse to quote their sources. Based on these data, Varensky unhelpfully suggested that “at this point, almost all deaths, especially adults, are completely preventable due to COVID-19.” Behind Varensky’s tricks, it was suggested that the percentage of hospitals not vaccinated can infer the degree to which vaccination reduces the risk. However, this is completely unreasonable in science. When comparing risks, finding the right comparator is crucial. This ignores the baseline risk-people who are not vaccinated for various reasons are usually out of their control and may also tend to have worse clinical outcomes. The United States deserves the truth and science of CDC, not inappropriate risk measurement and semantic deception.
The CDC director’s unwillingness to be transparent, frank, and open about his data and methods is not only worrying on a key scientific level, but it has also led to a catastrophic implosion of public health policies and communications. The head of the CDC just throws out random numbers that have not been published in any prestigious journals, including the CDC’s own peer-reviewed journal (mortality and morbidity weekly report), and hopes that people will not only take it seriously— -And adjust them to make a living. Those same people and organizations that nag the public for their lack of public trust then continue to be huge sources of misinformation, which will have a huge impact on Facebook and Twitter.
I remember the days when Trump was ridiculed and criticized a lot for tracing the path of a hurricane with a sharp stroke.
How is this better?
