CDC leak shows the vaccinated aren't the big Delta risk

[Devils_Advocate]

This was an event...and likely REQUIRED vaccination cert to attend.

No one ever said you CAN'T get covid once you are vaccinated. They said it was unlikely. And that if you did it would be mild.

If they were off a little...then masking makes sense

Jesus people. Spend as much energy trying to fight covid as you do each other and we beat this thing

Problem is that breakthrough cases are also dying and have been reported, so the fact is the vaccine is losing out to the mutations and will be worthless soon.

 

[colfax_m]

My wife, who is a physician keeps on top things in the medical community, particularly in out-patient settings. She, and her colleagues suggested treating out patients with HCQ and AZM back in March of 2020, before Trump mentioned it. Many physicians across the nation were prescribing it to each other before Trump mentioned the drug and politics took over. They stopped filling the prescriptions. Canada was the best option to get the drug for COVID-19 treament.

As you know HCQ has been WIDELY used for decades. Whether it was effective or not, there was absolutely no reason to prevent the prescription of the drug for COVID patients as there is no legitimate study that shows it was dangerous when given in the appropriate dosage. The CDC knew that but lied about that anyway and actually had to restract their statements, albeit, only after the damage had been done. I firmly believe that if Trump had not mentioned the drug, it would have been used appropriately in an out-patient setting and many lives would have been saved. The only other caveat here is that drug companies stood to make a fortune on a new drug/vaccine and HCQ would have damaged their potential profits as it is generic, readily available and cheap. Politics aside, money likely played a role as well.

Many studies continue to suggest that HCQ and AZM decrease severe illness from COVID-19 by as much as 200% when administered before the disease progresses. You choose to believe the ones that state it isn’t effective. The science is at odds.

Study shows hydroxychloroquine and zinc treatments increased coronavirus survival rate by almost three times

You really should read the entire article linked below. It hits the nail on the head regarding this treatment.

You are being redirected...

There’s so much wrong here. So much. And it’s not because you’re a bad person, but you just don’t understand what’s actually going on and you’re believing conspiratorial nonsense.

Nothing against Zelenko. I’m sure he’s a good dude that’s trying, but no one cares what he thinks. At least, no one that actually cares about properly treating patients with evidence based medicine. He’s just some random dude that got pushed into popular media by Sean Hannity. He’s not a researcher. He’s a community doc who did his research on YouTube. He published a “study” that is so ridden with nonsense, omissions and errors, it can’t possibly be used to treat patients.

People did good trials. Good trials in all sorts of situations. Trials all over the world. They all showed the same, no effect. Zelenko replies in your article that they used too high of doses that were dangerous to people. Okay, if you say so. But that doesn’t explain why the trials weren’t effective. A high dose of this drug should have been just as effective (more so if you believe any of the Hill Criteria). Ever hear of an antibiotic that only worked at low doses? Of course not.

There are studies like the one you posted, but they’re weak. A retrospective study from the first few months of the pandemic is about as weak as it gets. Besides, it’s awfully suspicious when these studies come from people who professed faith in the drug before they publish. As in, convenient that the true believers manage to find a way to make it true.

The CDC had reports of QT prolongation, especially when combined with other QT prolonging drugs. That can be dangerous. And yeah, we’d used hydroxychloroquine at low doses safely. But we didn’t use it with a Zithromax. We didn’t use it in COVID patients. Maybe there wasn’t data showing danger, although there were reports, but there wasn’t safety data either. Pulling EUA for a drug that doesn’t show effect is the right thing to do.

The thing you don’t understand is that the medical community doesn’t give a shit what Trump says. We care what the data shows and when you look at all the data, it’s clear that hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work. We tried it. I used it too. It just didn’t work. If Trump had never said anything, we would have just moved on. No one would care. But there’s the nutty contingent of people who can’t let it go and I think a lot of them are people who are devotees of Trump who just can’t let themselves believe that Trump is wrong and so they invent anti-Trump conspiracies. It’s just stupid.

 

[Lesh]

Problem is that breakthrough cases are also dying

Very Very rarely

the fact is the vaccine is losing out to the mutations and will be worthless soon.

It is NOT and presumably will not if enough people get it

 

[DBA]

The thing you don’t understand is that the medical community doesn’t give a shit what Trump says. We care what the data shows and when you look at all the data, it’s clear that hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work. We tried it. I used it too. It just didn’t work.

Ah, but clearly they do. A French study came out in March of 2020, prior to Trump mentioning the drug. There was little opposition to the study and many ascribed to it. Trump mentioned drug and it blew up from there. Either there were politics involved or some of you were far behind on reading medical reviews.

I think you mentioned you are a hospitalist. That is not the same as an out-patient physician, particularly when it comes to using HCQ to lesson the affects of COVID. It is not meant for a hospital setting.

Doctors and scientists are not immune to politics and it clearly affects their research and beliefs. Like I keep saying, the fact that the CDC flat out lied and there wasn't an uproar from the medical community says it all. Any doctor knew that HCQ wasn't dangerous when given in the appropriate dosages, but nothing but crickets.

 

[Lesh]

Ah, but clearly they do. A French study came out in March of 2020, prior to Trump mentioning the drug. There was little opposition to the study and many ascribed to it. Trump mentioned drug and it blew up from there. Either there were politics involved or some of you were far behind on reading medical reviews.

I think you mentioned you are a hospitalist. That is not the same as an out-patient physician, particularly when it comes to using HCQ to lesson the affects of COVID. It is not meant for a hospital setting.

Doctors and scientists are not immune to politics and it clearly affects their research and beliefs. Like I keep saying, the fact that the CDC flat out lied and there wasn't an uproar from the medical community says it all. Any doctor knew that HCQ wasn't dangerous when given in the appropriate dosages, but nothing but crickets.

But when used in "safe doses" it was found that Hyroxy was not effective. So what did they do? Up the dosage to unsafe levels (which was also not effective) and combine with other medications (untested and also not effective)

 

[colfax_m]

Ah, but clearly they do. A French study came out in March of 2020, prior to Trump mentioning the drug. There was little opposition to the study and many ascribed to it. Trump mentioned drug and it blew up from there. Either there were politics involved or some of you were far behind on reading medical reviews.

I think you mentioned you are a hospitalist. That is not the same as an out-patient physician, particularly when it comes to using HCQ to lesson the affects of COVID. It is not meant for a hospital setting.

Doctors and scientists are not immune to politics and it clearly affects their research and beliefs. Like I keep saying, the fact that the CDC flat out lied and there wasn't an uproar from the medical community says it all. Any doctor knew that HCQ wasn't dangerous when given in the appropriate dosages, but nothing but crickets.

I believe the French study that you’re referring to is the Raoult study, which got a LOT of attention on right wing media. There was pushback on that study (if I got it right) because Raoult has had some dodgy history with ethics and diving into that study there were similarly some problems.

But that wasn’t the only observational studies and a number small studies did suggest an effect. These studies weren’t plastered all over right wing media, so you’ve never heard of them.

So we used hydroxychloroquine and we used it for months. Trump jumped on the bandwagon, probably out of desperation for something positive given the shit we were going through. It wasn’t a problem that he mentioned it as a potential treatment, is that he was blowing everything out of proportion, which should surprise no one. We didn’t know if it was effective let alone if it was potentially the “biggest game changer in medical history” which is what he said about it. That was stupid and started skewing all of the media coverage.

But in medicine, we still didn’t give a shit because no one in medicine gets their information from popular media which does a horseshit job at covering these topics.

We kept using hydroxychloroquine for months. When did we stop? It was when data came out that showed it didn’t work. That’s when we stopped. Not because of what anyone in politics or the media said. But because that’s what the best data showed.

The FDA didn’t flat out lie. Everyone knows that if a drug has no benefit and a very low chance of complication, there’s no reason to use it. It just doesn’t work.

Politics can affect doctors. No ones perfect. It affects most those physicians who are media whores just trying to get their face on television.

 

[DBA]

So we used hydroxychloroquine and we used it for months. Trump jumped on the bandwagon, probably out of desperation for something positive given the shit we were going through. It wasn’t a problem that he mentioned it as a potential treatment, is that he was blowing everything out of proportion, which should surprise no one. We didn’t know if it was effective let alone if it was potentially the “biggest game changer in medical history” which is what he said about it. That was stupid and started skewing all of the media coverage.

Maybe it was the other way around. The first known case of COVID in the US was Jan 21st, 2020. Trump mentioned the potential benefits of HCQ on March 21st. The Lancet study came out on May 22nd suggesting that HCQ was dangerous. As you know the Lancet study was retracted, however, the same day, the NEJM release an article stating that ACE inhibitors and ARB's were "harmful"..."when used in this clinical context. Also on the same day the WHO suspended their trials. As you may also know, the NEJM article was also retracted. On May 27th, Swizterland paused the use of HCQ. During this pause, the fatality rate from Switerzland started approaching that of France, which had not been using HCQ for treatment. Many other studies continued to show the efficacy of HCQ in real-world clinical trials, but politics and big pharma wouldn't have any part of it. The ball was rolling to diminish the value of HCQ.

We kept using hydroxychloroquine for months. When did we stop? It was when data came out that showed it didn’t work. That’s when we stopped. Not because of what anyone in politics or the media said. But because that’s what the best data showed.

You stated previously that you were a hospitalist. Folks that have progressed to that stage of the disease do not respond to HCQ. That is well known. How were you prescribing HCQ to patients at the first signs of illness in a hospital setting?

The FDA didn’t flat out lie. Everyone knows that if a drug has no benefit and a very low chance of complication, there’s no reason to use it. It just doesn’t work.

No, they relied on false and since retracted information that just happened to coincide with their political agenda to say HCQ was dangerous. It wasn't and still isn't, but they needed to develop a narrative and they succeeded. Ultimately, it allowed for big pharma to make their money and it worsened the COVID death rate. Physicians don't have time to do research on their own. They rely on data from organizations that are not immune to influence, particularly when it comes to money. In this case, the money was certainly not here for HCQ to be effective and the WHO, who covered up for China, and many other influential medical entities didn't have any love for Trump. Money and politics skewed the results and thus skewed the opinions of many physicians who have no choice but to believe these organizations are supposed to be agnostic with regards to anything but science. HCQ was too easy and too cheap. Many world leaders and all Democrats needed Trump out of office. COVID was a Godsend to these folks and they took full advantage.

Before you poo-poo the source of the article I link below from France, keep in mind that so-called reputable organizations like WHO and NEJM have already shown their incompetence as discussed above.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2007621

The Lancet Retracts Hydroxychloroquine Study

Covid-19: hydroxychloroquine works, a proof ?

 

[Aldo Raine]

You guys are idiots who have no idea what you’re talking about.

They are tardherders, it's in their DNA!
MAGA

 

[colfax_m]

Maybe it was the other way around. The first known case of COVID in the US was Jan 21st, 2020. Trump mentioned the potential benefits of HCQ on March 21st. The Lancet study came out on May 22nd suggesting that HCQ was dangerous. As you know the Lancet study was retracted, however, the same day, the NEJM release an article stating that ACE inhibitors and ARB's were "harmful"..."when used in this clinical context. Also on the same day the WHO suspended their trials. As you may also know, the NEJM article was also retracted. On May 27th, Swizterland paused the use of HCQ. During this pause, the fatality rate from Switerzland started approaching that of France, which had not been using HCQ for treatment. Many other studies continued to show the efficacy of HCQ in real-world clinical trials, but politics and big pharma wouldn't have any part of it. The ball was rolling to diminish the value of HCQ.

The Lancet study was retracted before the FDA revoked the EUA and the Lancet study wasn't the only study showing adverse effects, there were adverse events in the RECOVERY trial. And it's not as if hydroxychloroquine being a "safe" drug means it never has any adverse effects. Few if any drugs could be said to have no adverse effects. It's well known that it causes cardiac conduction abnormalities and adding that to a sick patient is adding risk, albeit small. Thing is, when there is NO benefit, adding any additional risk carries the most weight. Again, the biggest reason for taking away the EUA was the RECOVERY trial which was stopped early because there was no benefit and they were trending towards increased mortality in the hydroxychloroquine treatment arm. Other studies are observational or retrospective. The FDA is always going to rely most on the best study design, a randomized clinical trial which is exactly what RECOVERY was.

You stated previously that you were a hospitalist. Folks that have progressed to that stage of the disease do not respond to HCQ. That is well known. How were you prescribing HCQ to patients at the first signs of illness in a hospital setting?

"This is well known". Then why are you pushing articles claiming that there's a benefit from hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients? That's the Smith study you posted earlier. There's randomized clinical trials that demonstrate no efficacy as an outpatient too.

No, they relied on false and since retracted information that just happened to coincide with their political agenda to say HCQ was dangerous. It wasn't and still isn't, but they needed to develop a narrative and they succeeded. Ultimately, it allowed for big pharma to make their money and it worsened the COVID death rate. Physicians don't have time to do research on their own. They rely on data from organizations that are not immune to influence, particularly when it comes to money. In this case, the money was certainly not here for HCQ to be effective and the WHO, who covered up for China, and many other influential medical entities didn't have any love for Trump. Money and politics skewed the results and thus skewed the opinions of many physicians who have no choice but to believe these organizations are supposed to be agnostic with regards to anything but science. HCQ was too easy and too cheap. Many world leaders and all Democrats needed Trump out of office. COVID was a Godsend to these folks and they took full advantage.

Before you poo-poo the source of the article I link below from France, keep in mind that so-called reputable organizations like WHO and NEJM have already shown their incompetence as discussed above.

It's hard to imagine that there's a political agenda against hydroxychloroquine. It's a fine drug with good uses. I used it as did all my colleagues well after Trump started running his mouth. If it was purely political, one would think I'd have stopped then. It's a ridiculous statement to claim that "big pharma" is doing anything. Just ridiculous and shows you have no idea what you're talking about. Physicians DEFINITELY do have time to do research on their own. They have access to every trial and every study that the FDA and professional organizations have, organizations such as the Infectious Disease Society of America. These organizations came to the same conclusion based on the best data, again, not making broad claims about "Switzerland is better because of this or that" but because of well designed studies that had nothing to do with pharma. The idea that numerous studies could be "skewed" because of Trump or money is absurd and there's nothing to support it other than your political paranoia and bunker mentality.

Again, the BIGGEST by far reason that the EUA for hydroxychloroquine was pulled wasn't because of safety, it was because IT DOESN'T WORK and that remains true to this day. What does work? Dexamethasone which coincidentally is dirt cheap. I guess big pharma didn't get to us on that one, did they? Shucks. Maybe next time.

 

[DBA]

The Lancet study was retracted before the FDA revoked the EUA and the Lancet study wasn't the only study showing adverse effects, there were adverse events in the RECOVERY trial. And it's not as if hydroxychloroquine being a "safe" drug means it never has any adverse effects. Few if any drugs could be said to have no adverse effects. It's well known that it causes cardiac conduction abnormalities and adding that to a sick patient is adding risk, albeit small. Thing is, when there is NO benefit, adding any additional risk carries the most weight. Again, the biggest reason for taking away the EUA was the RECOVERY trial which was stopped early because there was no benefit and they were trending towards increased mortality in the hydroxychloroquine treatment arm. Other studies are observational or retrospective. The FDA is always going to rely most on the best study design, a randomized clinical trial which is exactly what RECOVERY was.



"This is well known". Then why are you pushing articles claiming that there's a benefit from hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients? That's the Smith study you posted earlier. There's randomized clinical trials that demonstrate no efficacy as an outpatient too.



It's hard to imagine that there's a political agenda against hydroxychloroquine. It's a fine drug with good uses. I used it as did all my colleagues well after Trump started running his mouth. If it was purely political, one would think I'd have stopped then. It's a ridiculous statement to claim that "big pharma" is doing anything. Just ridiculous and shows you have no idea what you're talking about. Physicians DEFINITELY do have time to do research on their own. They have access to every trial and every study that the FDA and professional organizations have, organizations such as the Infectious Disease Society of America. These organizations came to the same conclusion based on the best data, again, not making broad claims about "Switzerland is better because of this or that" but because of well designed studies that had nothing to do with pharma. The idea that numerous studies could be "skewed" because of Trump or money is absurd and there's nothing to support it other than your political paranoia and bunker mentality.

Again, the BIGGEST by far reason that the EUA for hydroxychloroquine was pulled wasn't because of safety, it was because IT DOESN'T WORK and that remains true to this day. What does work? Dexamethasone which coincidentally is dirt cheap. I guess big pharma didn't get to us on that one, did they? Shucks. Maybe next time.

My wife has always claimed the benefit is meant for patients testing positive and in the early stages before severe illness. These are the patients she has treated and these are the patients in which she has seen positive results. These are also the patients in which positive results were being shown prior to these studies. It isn't coincidental that death rates increased when the use of HCQ was halted.

I don't really care what you believe. Clearly, you trust the medical powers and feel as though they can be trusted and are immune to bias. I don't blame you to some extent because somebody has to be trusted as a reliable source of information. Sorry, I don't believe that as there is too much evidence to the contrary and not just as it relates to COVID but from Global Warming on down. Bias is prevalent and money talks. Much like those that choose that CNN is telling them the truth vs Fox is telling them the truth, I guess you have to pick a side which you trust the most.

 

[JohnDB]

The studies surrounding the breakthrough cases are just getting started....

No where near complete or even started good yet.

The likelihood of breakthrough cases eventually becoming mainstream are high.

Boosters against the new strains are going to be needed. The chances of not needing them are slim to none.

Get used to the idea.

 

[colfax_m]

My wife has always claimed the benefit is meant for patients testing positive and in the early stages before severe illness. These are the patients she has treated and these are the patients in which she has seen positive results. These are also the patients in which positive results were being shown prior to these studies. It isn't coincidental that death rates increased when the use of HCQ was halted.

I don't really care what you believe. Clearly, you trust the medical powers and feel as though they can be trusted and are immune to bias. I don't blame you to some extent because somebody has to be trusted as a reliable source of information. Sorry, I don't believe that as there is too much evidence to the contrary and not just as it relates to COVID but from Global Warming on down. Bias is prevalent and money talks. Much like those that choose that CNN is telling them the truth vs Fox is telling them the truth, I guess you have to pick a side which you trust the most.

I don't care what you wife claims, what matters is what data supports. The problem with saying it's for people who aren't really all that sick is that you've now restricted the benefit to a population that almost always get better anyway. Therefore, the "positive results" your seeing are totally expected even if the drug does absolutely nothing. Studies done in large numbers of outpatients also confirms the drug has no effect. You wife can claim whatever she wants. You can ignore my opinion. What is there at the end of the day is that the data doesn’t support it.

As for saying it's not "coincidental", that's not a scientific statement, even if you did have data to support it the correlation.

I believe that medical powers are far less biased than someone like yourself and I believe that someone claiming a wide ranging conspiracy theory needs to provide substantial evidence of it rather than your baseless aspersions.

"Money talks"? What money?

 

[Circe]

That Gottlieb is such a government propagandist.

At least he's incoherent, so no one will pay attention.

 

[Circe]

great thing about science is that it doesnt depend on you to believe it for it to be true.

An even greater thing about science is that it can eventually overwhelm these government propagandists. It takes awhile though; I bet we don't figure out COVID for three or four years.

I have a couple anti-gov-propaganda books I bought this summer when we all thought it was over. I'm not going to read them, I think, because it turns out to be just too early. It's like WWI when people said the war would be over before the leaves fall! Four years later it finally dragged to an end --- same here. "Just two weeks to flatten the curve" is turning into years and years of disaster.

 

[DBA]

I don't care what you wife claims, what matters is what data supports. The problem with saying it's for people who aren't really all that sick is that you've now restricted the benefit to a population that almost always get better anyway. Therefore, the "positive results" your seeing are totally expected even if the drug does absolutely nothing. Studies done in large numbers of outpatients also confirms the drug has no effect.

Giving the drug to a random group of people at the appropriate time vs not giving the drug to another random group of people at the same time yields applicable results. The varying degrees of susceptibility to getting deathly ill would be the same across both groups. There are studies that show that when given at the appropriate time, HCQ decreases fatalities. There is also quite a bit of real-world anecdotal evidence as well, which shouldn't be ignored. My wife likely doesn't care what you think is true either simply based on what you have read. She knows from actual first-hand experience that those given HCQ at the appropriate time had better outcomes than those that did not. In fact, in at least two cases I am aware of, they started feeling better literally the day they began the regimen. I know for a fact that in my area many physicians, hospitalists in particular, diagnosed early with COVID bucked the supposed research and took HCQ and continue to do so. Actions speak louder than words.

"Money talks"? What money?

There is quite a bit of money being made on vaccines. If you weren't aware, you should have invested in MRNA when I did back in 4/20. The vaccines aside, science, in general, won't cut the hands that feed them, thus why global warming is such a thing now. It is a HUGE money grab. Scientists are working to prove how warming can be caused by humans instead of why global warming may be occurring in the first place. Their fiduciaries want and are willing to pay for a certain outcome, in this case, they need anthropologic global warming to be true because that is where the money is. If it is merely cyclical and can't be controlled by human activity, the "green" energy business is dead in the water and that amounts to trillions of lost dollars. This is sad but true in many cases in today's scientific community.

 

[colfax_m]

Giving the drug to a random group of people at the appropriate time vs not giving the drug to another random group of people at the same time yields applicable results. The varying degrees of susceptibility to getting deathly ill would be the same across both groups. There are studies that show that when given at the appropriate time, HCQ decreases fatalities. There is also quite a bit of real-world anecdotal evidence as well, which shouldn't be ignored. My wife likely doesn't care what you think is true either simply based on what you have read. She knows from actual first-hand experience that those given HCQ at the appropriate time had better outcomes than those that did not. In fact, in at least two cases I am aware of, they started feeling better literally the day they began the regimen. I know for a fact that in my area many physicians, hospitalists in particular, diagnosed early with COVID bucked the supposed research and took HCQ and continue to do so. Actions speak louder than words.

There is quite a bit of money being made on vaccines. If you weren't aware, you should have invested in MRNA when I did back in 4/20. The vaccines aside, science, in general, won't cut the hands that feed them, thus why global warming is such a thing now. It is a HUGE money grab. Scientists are working to prove how warming can be caused by humans instead of why global warming may be occurring in the first place. Their fiduciaries want and are willing to pay for a certain outcome, in this case, they need anthropologic global warming to be true because that is where the money is. If it is merely cyclical and can't be controlled by human activity, the "green" energy business is dead in the water and that amounts to trillions of lost dollars. This is sad but true in many cases in today's scientific community.

Your wife isn't practicing evidence based medicine if this is what is truly happening. You simply don't know if these two cases of people feeling better the day they took the drug was because of the drug or if it was because people almost always get over COVID just fine without treatment (ESPECIALLY those who are seen in an outpatient arena). If she's still prescribing this, it's outside the current base of evidence which is bad medicine.

Anecdotal evidence is not scientific. It's prone to all sorts of bias. Proper scientific studies shouldn't be ignored, which is exactly what people are doing if they continue to prescribe hydroxychloroquine despite the data showing no effect.

When you say "given at the appropriate time", that time always seems to be just whatever time the data is missing for. But by now, about every possible RCT has been done and few if any showed any beneficial effect.

Are you suggesting we wouldn't have developed a vaccine if hydroxychloroquine works? That's not an either/or scenario. That's definitely something we were always going to do. There's no interaction there. Won't cut the hand that feeds them? What the hell does that even mean? The major studies against hydroxychloroquine weren't sponsored by pharma. What "hand" are you talking about? If that were truly the issue, then the studies showing benefit of dexamethasone wouldn't have been positive and it wouldn't be a staple of COVID treatment.

This is all a lot of handwaving conspiracy nonsense. The sad but true thing is that people are willing to believe it.

 

[Polishprince]

CDC leak shows the vaccinated aren't the big Delta risk​

Gottlieb, Wen: CDC leak shows the vaccinated aren't the big Delta risk

hotair.com

30 Jul 2021 ~~ By Ed Morrissey
Has the COVID-19 “war” changed with the Delta variant, as the CDC’s leaked documents declared? Not really, former FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb told CNBC’s Squawk Box this morning. Parsing out the data from the clickbait, Gottlieb points out that the vaccines make the kind of breakthrough transmission cited by this study relatively rare, although perhaps more asymptomatically prevalent than the CDC acknowledged before now.
Therefore, the fully vaccinated are not a big vector for transmission. Nor did people think that the unvaccinated could never transmit the virus in the first place. The big issue is the unvaccinated, who keep choosing to pose a risk to themselves and others, and masking the vaccinated won’t mitigate that risk:

​

Gottlieb offers common-sense guidance for the vaccinated. If you are in close contact with uniquely vulnerable individuals, including the unvaccinated by restriction (such as small children), take precautions to protect them. Mandating masks for everyone makes no sense at all, in large part because it’s not protecting those who can’t protect themselves. The mandates are clearly intended to protect those who won’t protect themselves, and that’s a recipe for perpetual masking — which people aren’t going to tolerate anyway.
And in fact, as Axios reports, it’s guidance that people are already largely ignoring:
~Snip~
Dr. Leana Wen also took a look at the data and reaches the same conclusion as Gottlieb. Wen has a different public-policy agenda for dealing with the implications, but the data makes it clear that the CDC is focusing on the wrong population:

​

~Snip~
It’s even more basic than that. The COVID-19 genie is out of the bottle, and there’s simply no stuffing it back in. We have to learn to live with this virus, and that can’t mean shutting down commerce and forcing people to wear masks for years on end when we have vaccines that render this even less risky than a seasonal flu for the immune. The proper focus should fall on getting the unvaccinated to get their inoculations, and then vaccinate the world to transform COVID-19 into a routine and manageable health-care issue. Masking the vaccinated doesn’t advance those goals at all — and to the extent that it indemnifies the risk-takers, it seriously impedes progress toward that goal.
Update: Jeff Dunetz follows up on the same point:

But along with the health reasons, the vaccine is worth it because, after a year of national quarantine, the shots will allow us to return to a more normal life.​

This new CDC mask guidance takes that benefit away from the vaccinated to protect the non-vaccinated. What is beyond comprehension is why are the vaccinated people being punished for the actions of the non-vaccinated? This may sound callous, but the people who decided against getting the vaccine made their own decision—and if they catch COVID, that too is their decision. The CDC and governments who want to mandate compliance with the CDC’s new guidance should keep my family and me out of it.​

​

Comment:
No matter the number of vaccinated, WE will never achieve 100% protection from the CCP Covid-19 Virus simply because it continues to mutate.
Combined with Joey Xi Bai Dungs increased illegal alien crisis CCP Covid-19 will continue to thrive in America.
Meanwhile the CDC has not been honest in their evaluations of the numbers afflicted with the CCP Covid-19 virus. Other common illnesses besides COVID-19 are a problematic for people with compromised immune systems. Those individuals have to take precautions to avoid exposure. We don't force everyone to get flu shots because it might help people with compromised immune systems.
Indeed if this administration was really interested in slowing and stopping the CCP Covid virus and it's variants, it would close our borders to the illegal aliens crossing our Southern border..
Then there's the 6 Counties found with bubonic plague in Colorado. What is the CDC doing about it?

Colorado Girl’s Plague Death Is Tragic but Exceedingly Rare

The unnamed fourth-grader who died was a member of the 4-H Weaselskin Club, and had been raising hogs as part of the program.

www.thedailybeast.com

Since everyone isn't being tested, any of this data is just from folks concerned enough to get the testing. If someone is vaccinated, and the belief is that the vax is effective, why would they even bother with testing for it? Wouldn't they be looking to see what other ailment or condition was causing the patient's symptoms?

 

[JoeBlow]

CDC leak shows the vaccinated aren't the big Delta risk​

Gottlieb, Wen: CDC leak shows the vaccinated aren't the big Delta risk

hotair.com

30 Jul 2021 ~~ By Ed Morrissey
Has the COVID-19 “war” changed with the Delta variant, as the CDC’s leaked documents declared? Not really, former FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb told CNBC’s Squawk Box this morning. Parsing out the data from the clickbait, Gottlieb points out that the vaccines make the kind of breakthrough transmission cited by this study relatively rare, although perhaps more asymptomatically prevalent than the CDC acknowledged before now.
Therefore, the fully vaccinated are not a big vector for transmission. Nor did people think that the unvaccinated could never transmit the virus in the first place. The big issue is the unvaccinated, who keep choosing to pose a risk to themselves and others, and masking the vaccinated won’t mitigate that risk:

​

Gottlieb offers common-sense guidance for the vaccinated. If you are in close contact with uniquely vulnerable individuals, including the unvaccinated by restriction (such as small children), take precautions to protect them. Mandating masks for everyone makes no sense at all, in large part because it’s not protecting those who can’t protect themselves. The mandates are clearly intended to protect those who won’t protect themselves, and that’s a recipe for perpetual masking — which people aren’t going to tolerate anyway.
And in fact, as Axios reports, it’s guidance that people are already largely ignoring:
~Snip~
Dr. Leana Wen also took a look at the data and reaches the same conclusion as Gottlieb. Wen has a different public-policy agenda for dealing with the implications, but the data makes it clear that the CDC is focusing on the wrong population:

​

~Snip~
It’s even more basic than that. The COVID-19 genie is out of the bottle, and there’s simply no stuffing it back in. We have to learn to live with this virus, and that can’t mean shutting down commerce and forcing people to wear masks for years on end when we have vaccines that render this even less risky than a seasonal flu for the immune. The proper focus should fall on getting the unvaccinated to get their inoculations, and then vaccinate the world to transform COVID-19 into a routine and manageable health-care issue. Masking the vaccinated doesn’t advance those goals at all — and to the extent that it indemnifies the risk-takers, it seriously impedes progress toward that goal.
Update: Jeff Dunetz follows up on the same point:

But along with the health reasons, the vaccine is worth it because, after a year of national quarantine, the shots will allow us to return to a more normal life.​

This new CDC mask guidance takes that benefit away from the vaccinated to protect the non-vaccinated. What is beyond comprehension is why are the vaccinated people being punished for the actions of the non-vaccinated? This may sound callous, but the people who decided against getting the vaccine made their own decision—and if they catch COVID, that too is their decision. The CDC and governments who want to mandate compliance with the CDC’s new guidance should keep my family and me out of it.​

​

Comment:
No matter the number of vaccinated, WE will never achieve 100% protection from the CCP Covid-19 Virus simply because it continues to mutate.
Combined with Joey Xi Bai Dungs increased illegal alien crisis CCP Covid-19 will continue to thrive in America.
Meanwhile the CDC has not been honest in their evaluations of the numbers afflicted with the CCP Covid-19 virus. Other common illnesses besides COVID-19 are a problematic for people with compromised immune systems. Those individuals have to take precautions to avoid exposure. We don't force everyone to get flu shots because it might help people with compromised immune systems.
Indeed if this administration was really interested in slowing and stopping the CCP Covid virus and it's variants, it would close our borders to the illegal aliens crossing our Southern border..
Then there's the 6 Counties found with bubonic plague in Colorado. What is the CDC doing about it?

Colorado Girl’s Plague Death Is Tragic but Exceedingly Rare

The unnamed fourth-grader who died was a member of the 4-H Weaselskin Club, and had been raising hogs as part of the program.

www.thedailybeast.com

So basically, I should get a shot so you can go to a restaurant unstressed.

 

[wamose]

They say Fauci is making a lot of money on the Moderna vaccine train. If he has his way, he'll be mandating booster shots every three months for life.

 

[Concerned American]

I know exactly what I'm talking about. The CDC has been caught changing their story, lying about previous methods, pumping out propaganda, lying about real science. Its egregious and detrimental to the public. A payment will be exacted at some point due to their deception.

The longer they prolong this egregious crime, the more likely the penalty will be extracted in blood.