I am not suggesting CDC do anything against public health. Vaccination combined with non-pharma mitigations would have been better according to science. How is that political?
Is Delta really breaking news or every one supposed to pretend surprised along with CDC?
If CDC just bases their guidance on science and data and leave decisions to politicians, sure I agree they cannot be blamed. SAGE and Public Health England are two examples, whatever mistakes UK made that is purely on politicians.
Worth noting that SAGE and PHE (or PHAC) haven’t been consistently undermined by any of the political parties, opposition or otherwise. Nor by UK First Ministers and Provincial Premiers. Whitty, Tam, Valance etc do not attract the same kind of scorn or character assassination as Fauci, despite broadly similar messaging - at the same time.
That this self-evident truth needs to be pointed out reflects the absurdity of this exchange. The public health outcomes in the the 3 countries reflect this reality.
The new CDC is not based on study of data, but based on meta-analysis.https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/26/brie ... lines.html
Walensky replied that the 10 percent number came from a study published in The Journal of Infectious Diseases. The study was “a meta-analysis,” she explained, which means it synthesized data from other studies. “The topline result of all studies that were included in the systematic review said less than 10 percent of cases were transmitted outdoors,” she said.
Natural immunity doesn't last long was based on nurses in one Louisiana hospital.
School kids 3-ft separation was based on study of one school in Wisconsin by a medical journal.
No information was provided based on what study May'20 no-mask guidance was based on. Delta is not a surprise.
All health agencies (and governments) rely on meta analysis, especially in federal systems where healthcare is a delegated power. CDC, like PHAC, PHE etc studied international, domestic (state level, province level, municipal studies) and took action. Would you rather they replicate them to re-prove them (with all the time that takes)?
As for the “what study was the May 2020 no-mask guidance based on”, it was based on the scientific consensus at the time. The head of PHAC admitted as much, and noted that the initial reluctance was aimed at protecting PPE supply for healthcare workers.
“ Tam has long maintained that masks should be reserved for the sick among us, and for doctors and nurses working in hospitals, in order to preserve diminishing stockpiles of personal protective equipment.”
“ On Monday, however, Tam said wearing a mask is an added layer of protection that can help prevent pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic people from inadvertently infecting others with COVID-19. She said the policy change comes in response to "emerging information" from the science and medical community.
Tam said new research on patients aboard the Diamond Princess cruise ship — as many as 712 people who were aboard the vessel contracted the virus — and a recently published report out of Singapore were behind the policy change.
"We are very rapidly trying to integrate that later science," she said of the new studies that suggest people who have yet to develop symptoms can still have high viral loads that can be transmitted.
She said Canadians shouldn't wear medical-grade masks like the N95, as those supplies have to be reserved for medical professionals.“https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/non-me ... -1.5523321
It’s spelled out quite clearly: PHAC made a decision based on the information it had, then looked at studies from elsewhere (“meta analysis” from a ship and Singapore) and changed course.
Nobody is wringing their hands about it a year later and using it as an excuse to use or not use masks/take or not take vaccines. And that’s reflected in the relatively high vaccination rate. Can’t keep constantly attacking and undermining an institution based on past missteps and then wondering why nobody will listen to it.
The public health guidance is the same the world over. If people don’t want to listen to it or think they know better, that’s their prerogative. And fault. Attacking the CDC isn’t going to change that.