In his Wall Street Journal op-ed Marty Makary is sharply critical of the Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) present guidance for people who’ve received their COVID-19 inoculations:
In its guidance the CDC says the risks of infection in vaccinated people “cannot be completely eliminated.†True, we don’t have conclusive data that guarantees vaccination reduces risk to zero. We never will. We are operating in the realm of medical discretion based on the best available data, as practicing physicians have always done. The CDC highlights the vaccines’ stunning success but is ridiculously cautious about its implications. Public-health officials focus myopically on transmission risk while all but ignoring the broader health crisis stemming from isolation. The CDC acknowledges “potential†risks of isolation, but doesn’t go into details.
It’s time to liberate vaccinated people to restore their relationships and rebuild their lives. That would encourage vaccination by giving hesitant people a vivid incentive to have the shots.
His concluding advice is
Once a month has passed after your first shot, go back to normal.
while also advising to continue to wear a facemask in public. The quick summary of what he’s advocating is that he charges the CDC with ignoring the science in favor of the precautionary principle in a futile search for perfect safety.
I’m in no position either to agree or disagree with Dr. Makary or the CDC for that matter. I can only repeat what I’ve been saying for most of the last year which is that I wish that public officials were sharing more of their reasoning and the basis for their guidance rather than making ex cathedra pronouncements. There are facts, facts that are discounted, and assumptions. When people an distinguish among them they have a much better chance for making an informed decision.
I don’t trust Dr. Malkey for statements like this: “Immunity kicks in fully about four weeks after the first vaccine dose, and then you are essentially bulletproof.” C’mon man. This is a misleading statement.
The question presented is primarily about trade-offs, there are no scientific answers, just probabilities and a continuum of risk tolerance and considerations of the extent decisions can or should be made individually or collectively. This seems to be entirely within the realm of political judgment.
I think PD got it. The “science” can only identify and quantify the risks. After that it is a matter of deciding what trade offs you want to make.
I think he is wrong, based upon the studies I have read, about being fully immune 4 weeks after your first dose. You are pretty close. If you are elderly it is less certain, but what data we have says it is still pretty good. I pretty much agree with what he suggests but would modify it based upon the total percentage of at risk people in an area are vaccinated. At this point a very high percentage of those over 75 and even over 65 should have been vaccinated so I think most areas could do what he suggests.
To be sure, a lot of people wont actually wear masks, but they wont do that if they are vaccinated or not.
Steve
An example from New Jersey. Another from Texas. The number of fraudulent votes involved in each is in the hundreds. Another example from Texas. Your claim is refuted. There is more than zero evidence.
A better statement would be that the number of fraudulent votes, while enough to swing elections in which the difference between the candidates is less than 1%, is not enough to change the outcome of elections with 5 or 10% difference between the candates (as was the case in the 2020 presidential election). Or that you do not find the evidence dispositive.
The question I’m trying to raise is who makes the tradeoffs? I think that many officials are overreaching in making them themselves.
@steve, he references the study in the immediately preceding sentence: “An unpublished study conducted by the Israeli Health Ministry and Pfizer showed that vaccination reduced transmission by 89% to 94% and almost totally prevented hospitalization and death, according to press reports.”
It wasn’t simply four weeks after the first dose. It was one week after the second dose. Malkey is a first doses first fanatic, so the omission of any reference to the second dose was certainly purposeful.
I really hope everyone doesn’t discard their masks. I don’t want to be the only one everybody else points at.
“The question I’m trying to raise is who makes the tradeoffs? I think that many officials are overreaching in making them themselves.”
People have been ignoring CDC guidance on a host of things for years. They seem predisposed to always recommend whatever poses the least amount of risk regardless of any other considerations or factors.
PD- What I have seen is that we are probably talking 80%-90% effective for fist dose, but in the younger population, below 65 or 60. The tis pretty good but not 100% like he claims.
I think it almost has to be elected officials. You really dont want doctors to do it. The only two groups that would be worse are lawyers or engineers. 🙂
Steve
Dave- The first Texas example doesnt involve voting. Second one is a mishmash of charges a lot fo which seem duplicates. Best as I can tell maybe 30-40 actual votes. None of which would be affected buy voter ID, early voting etc. The first one seems very much more like a voting box issue. Again, none of the GOP proposals would affect this, and it looks like our standard precautions catch it. The vote was redone.
Steve
I’ll get my second shot tomorrow. But you don’t want to trade places, it’s because I have advanced COPD. That’s why I’ll wear a mask.
I feel like a fool, should get it over with, but Between exacerbations I get a reprieve.
I understand why people ran through the world trade center windows to their deaths, for two or three more breaths of fresh air.
It’s a physical, biological imperative, why waterboarding is so effective.