The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention updated its guidance on how long people should stay away from others if they have been exposed to the coronaviruses. The change cuts the waiting period in half for people without symptoms. Some experts argue that the new recommendations are too light since they don't depend on testing and people's health is being placed in danger to appease business interests.
The changes were announced by the CDC. People who test positive for covid-19 have been told to stay at home for 10 days. The CDC says that if you have no symptoms, you can interact with others, but you should wear a mask for the rest of the five days.
The CDC's move to shorten isolation to 5 days with no requirement to test negative is reckless and dangerous.
The CDC now recommends that people who have not beenvaccinated or who have received their primary vaccine series more than six months ago should wear a mask for the rest of the week. They should wear a mask for the entire 10 days if they can't suck it up. If you have gotten all your shots, including a booster, you should wear a mask for 10 days, but not if you are not experiencing symptoms.
People are most infectious before they get sick and for a few days after, according to numerous studies. The window of infection may close sooner for people who develop a breakthrough infection. This data was used in justifying the new guidance. The CDC wrote in its explanation of the changes that the change is motivated by science that shows most of the transmission occurs in the 1-2 days before the start of symptoms.
G/O Media might get a commission.
[.
There is a link to this on the website.
Get award-winning sound.
The Nuratrue Earbuds, Nuraphone headphones, and the NuraLoop earbuds are available at a generous discount.
The CDC makes it appear that the evidence is cut-and-dry, according to a social epidemiologist at Harvard who has studied the impact of the swine flu on the U.S.
The CDC's move to shorten isolation to 5 days with no requirement to test negative is reckless and dangerous. Many people can still be infectious after 5 days, and there is a lot of variability in how long people stay contagious.
The data cited by the CDC to warrant this change is not particularly ground-breaking, according to an epidemiology professor at the Boston University School of Public Health. There is no new evidence to support the idea of shortening the isolation period. I don't think it will help if the goal is to keep cases low.
The lack of advice for people to get tested before leaving isolation is something that some experts are still critical of. If a person tests negative on two rapid flow tests in a row, the UK has shortened its recommendations for isolation from 10 days to seven days. The CDC followed in the footsteps of the UK, but only for healthcare workers. If healthcare workers test negative and are not sick, they can return to work after seven days, but if there are staffing shortages, isolation time can be cut further.
Carl Bergstrom, a professor of biology at the University of Washington, told Gizmodo that it makes sense to allow some people to leave isolation in less than 10 days. The devil is in the details. What should the criteria be? The CDC press release does not answer this.
The five-day rule is meant for people who are not sick at all. The CDC says that this applies to people who have symptoms for five days. Those with a disease are still being told to stay away from each other.
The infectious period for previous strains was longer than five days for many patients. Does the CDC think this is the same? Bergstrom said something. Is the thought of vaccine or prior infections reducing the infectious interval included in the recommendation? Is this a cost-benefit calculation? We don't have enough information to know.
The elephant in the room is that the changes do not appear to be solely motivated by the science. Ed Bastian, CEO of Delta Air Lines, publicly pleaded with the CDC to cut the recommended isolation period for people with breakthrough infections, citing the impact it was having on his workforce. Many experts, along with workers' unions, believe that this is more about getting people to work than keeping them safe.
At a time when many hospitals are starting to become overwhelmed with covid-19 patients, it is a clear case of prioritizing corporate profit over public health.
The emergence of the Omicron variant has caused case loads to rise in some areas to the highest levels seen yet. Omicron appears to be milder than the Delta variant, but it may still be a problem. Similar to previous waves, it is not just cases but hospitalizations and deaths that are on the rise.
It is possible that this change will not have a big impact on the trajectory of the Pandemic. The CDC has lost the trust of the public in recent months, and it is one of the reasons why scientists and others are parodying the CDC on social media. If you are hoping to get everyone back to work as soon as possible, the new recommendations may be counter-productive.
It seems short-sighted to think that case levels won't be affected by workplace absences. Staffing issues will be caused by the workplace being full of infectious employees. If they really cared about staffing issues in January, they would accept some closings now to get this surge under control.
