CDC releases new guidance surrounding covid.

It’s called getting on with it.

We needed to get here and we’ve got here now.

There are other, greater concerns now.
 
Randy said:
Various American newspapers/stations reporting this. Quick snapshot though below.

View attachment 42724


Thoughts? Supported by the Biden/Harris administration obviously.
Click to expand...
Seems ok to me now, but would certainly not have been ok at any point in 20/21 or early 22 when we were still figuring out Omicron. There doesn't appear to be anything on the immediate horizon which poses an increased risk either (over previous strains and circumstances).

There's a mass of immunity through multiple vaccines and multiple infections now, protections are about as high as they will probably ever get.

Time to forget about it, now that the risk has reduced massively, there are much bigger risks out there now, largely economical/ inflationary and other health issues which need to be prioritised again. The world needs to get back to "normal service", to try and get things running smoothly again.

People at risk and older folk should still get boosters and minimise their risk if they feel reducing that risk won't be detrimental to their lives, but that's the choice of the individual now.
 
Randy said:
But. The CDC are saying there is no difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated with regards to the rules. Why is that?
Click to expand...
There's no difference between the rules as there no longer are any rules, as there is now very little (no) requirement for any rules.

The unvaccinated are still more at risk themselves, but if they haven't been vaccinated then they likely never will be.

The newer variants bridge the gap between an un-vaccinated person being more likely to spread than a vaccinated person, and most people will have been exposed numerous times by now.

Don't think this is a change in stance, to support antivaxers though, as it's not, nowhere near, it's the exact opposite. This is just how we progress, vaccination and protection measures when risk is high, and then when risk is reduced to what it reasonably can be, then all measures can be removed, even for the idiots who didn't get vaccinated (who could).
 
Randy said:
But. The CDC are saying there is no difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated with regards to the rules. Why is that?
Click to expand...
Andy_W said:
Don't think this is a change in stance, to support antivaxers though, as it's not, nowhere near, it's the exact opposite. This is just how we progress, vaccination and protection measures when risk is high, and then when risk is reduced to what it reasonably can be, then all measures can be removed, even for the idiots who didn't get vaccinated (who could).
Click to expand...
I think it's worse than that. The CDC and US Govt have decided that the effort required to get more people vaxxed is less economically viable than any extra deaths caused by Covid, even where those deaths are in the vulnerable rather than the unvaccinated.

At some point the economy was going to take priority over health because that's the system we live in. Corporatism doesn't give a monkeys about individuals. Which makes US style right-wing Libertarianism such a strange political choice for the people that are under it's yoke.
 
Scrote said:
I think it's worse than that. The CDC and US Govt have decided that the effort required to get more people vaxxed is less economically viable than any extra deaths caused by Covid, even where those deaths are in the vulnerable rather than the unvaccinated.

At some point the economy was going to take priority over health because that's the system we live in. Corporatism doesn't give a monkeys about individuals. Which makes US style right-wing Libertarianism such a strange political choice for the people that are under it's yoke.
Click to expand...
It’s funny that you think they have a choice.
 
Andy_W said:
There's no difference between the rules as there no longer are any rules, as there is now very little (no) requirement for any rules.

The unvaccinated are still more at risk themselves, but if they haven't been vaccinated then they likely never will be.

The newer variants bridge the gap between an un-vaccinated person being more likely to spread than a vaccinated person, and most people will have been exposed numerous times by now.

Don't think this is a change in stance, to support antivaxers though, as it's not, nowhere near, it's the exact opposite. This is just how we progress, vaccination and protection measures when risk is high, and then when risk is reduced to what it reasonably can be, then all measures can be removed, even for the idiots who didn't get vaccinated (who could).
Click to expand...
Good post Andy as per.
 
Randy said:
Were you living under a rock when care workers were been shunted out of their jobs for example? That didn't just happen just happen in this country WM.
Click to expand...
Randy, there is no need to be rude mate. I wasn't living under a rock at all through the days of Covid. In fact I was front line NHS for 6 months of it. I work day to day with ill people even now with my new role.

I mean you no ill at all, but sometimes (in my opinion) my post some very false stuff about the recent pandemic.

Take care and UTB
 
weemoby said:
Randy, there is no need to be rude mate. I wasn't living under a rock at all through the days of Covid. In fact I was front line NHS for 6 months of it. I work day to day with ill people even now with my new role.

I mean you no ill at all, but sometimes (in my opinion) my post some very false stuff about the recent pandemic.

Take care and UTB
Click to expand...
Didn't mean to sound rude Moby. Apologies. More respect for you than that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top