• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Vaccinated teachers and students don’t need masks, CDC says

exchemist

exchemist

Veteran Member
We Never Know said:
The vaccinated can still get it, carry it and spread it. So they don't need a mask because why???

Vaccinated Teachers and Students Don't Need Masks, CDC Says | Health News | US News
Click to expand...
Because it is far less likely.

Say a vaccinated person has a 10% chance of being infected by a contact with someone with the disease sufficiently to become infectious themselves. That means the chance of that contact causing a vaccinated teacher to get it and pass it to a vaccinated student is 10% x 10% = 1%. I don't have the actual figures to hand but that sort of calculation will be in their minds when making these decisions, I think. As always with these things there is a balance of risk to be struck.

As to implementing such a relaxation in practice, that poses other problems for the education authorities to work out, of course, but presumably that is not the CDC's job.
 
Martin

Martin

Spam, wonderful spam (bloody vikings!)
exchemist said:
Because it is far less likely.

Say a vaccinated person has a 10% chance of being infected by a contact with someone with the disease sufficiently to become infectious themselves. That means the chance of that contact causing a vaccinated teacher to get it and pass it to a vaccinated student is 10% x 10% = 1%. I don't have the actual figures to hand but that sort of calculation will be in their minds when making these decisions, I think. As always with these things there is a balance of risk to be struck.

As to implementing such a relaxation in practice, that poses other problems for the education authorities to work out, of course, but presumably that is not the CDC's job.
Click to expand...

Yes, vaccinated people who do get infected are less likely to get seriously ill, and less likely to infect others (greatly reduced viral load).
Hopefully they will closely monitor the effects of this policy change.
 
We Never Know

We Never Know

No Slack
exchemist said:
Because it is far less likely.

Say a vaccinated person has a 10% chance of being infected by a contact with someone with the disease sufficiently to become infectious themselves. That means the chance of that contact causing a vaccinated teacher to get it and pass it to a vaccinated student is 10% x 10% = 1%. I don't have the actual figures to hand but that sort of calculation will be in their minds when making these decisions, I think. As always with these things there is a balance of risk to be struck.

As to implementing such a relaxation in practice, that poses other problems for the education authorities to work out, of course, but presumably that is not the CDC's job.
Click to expand...


Say a unasked vaccinated person has a xx% chance of being carrier by being in contact with someone with the virus a they are on their way to school, they can still spread it to people at school.
 
exchemist

exchemist

Veteran Member
We Never Know said:
Say a unasked vaccinated person has a xx% chance of being carrier by being in contact with someone with the virus a they are on their way to school, they can still spread it to people at school.
Click to expand...
With a very low probability, yes, as I have just outlined. But we are never in a zero risk situation, are we?

And to set against that, wearing masks in school does cause some problems. It is harder to hear what people say clearly and people with spectacles (like my son, who has just finished school a few weeks ago) have difficulties reading because they steam up.
 
Martin

Martin

Spam, wonderful spam (bloody vikings!)
exchemist said:
With a very low probability, yes, as I have just outlined. But we are never in a zero risk situation, are we?

And to set against that, wearing masks in school does cause some problems. It is harder to hear what people say clearly and people with spectacles (like my son, who has just finished school a few weeks ago) have difficulties reading because they steam up.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's like with lockdowns, they have some serious adverse effects on people. It's always a balancing act.
 
Twilight Hue

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
exchemist said:
What? You mean you were serious in suggesting that removing a rule is coercion?

I can't believe it.
Click to expand...
I was reported myself not too long ago for abusing it myself, so I stopped using it aside from actual levity.

It wouldn't be right if I was held up to the standard and others apparently get away with it.

Sounds like the rule is still in effect unless I'm wrong. Mods?

Anyways, nobody should be coerced into getting it until it's fully approved by the FDA. That's my opinion on the matter.
 
We Never Know

We Never Know

No Slack
exchemist said:
With a very low probability, yes, as I have just outlined. But we are never in a zero risk situation, are we?

And to set against that, wearing masks in school does cause some problems. It is harder to hear what people say clearly and people with spectacles (like my son, who has just finished school a few weeks ago) have difficulties reading because they steam up.
Click to expand...
I agree but isn't stopping the spread of the virus and deaths more important?
 
exchemist

exchemist

Veteran Member
Meerkat said:
Yes, it's like with lockdowns, they have some serious adverse effects on people. It's always a balancing act.
Click to expand...
In fact, though, it will be some time before anything changes in schools, because they would need to find out who is vaccinated first. That may not be easy to do reliably in the US, given the fragmentation of health provision, but I don't know.
 
exchemist

exchemist

Veteran Member
Twilight Hue said:
I was reported myself not too long ago for abusing it myself, so I stopped using it aside from actual levity.

It wouldn't be right if I was held up to the standard and others apparently get away with it.

Sounds like the rule is still in effect unless I'm wrong. Mods?

Anyways, nobody should be coerced into getting it until it's fully approved by the FDA. That's my opinion on the matter.
Click to expand...
Ah, so what you meant is that removing this rule for vaccinated people is an incentive to get vaccinated. You did not make that explicit. Well, yes, I suppose it is.

But it's hardly "coercion". After all, continuing to wear a mask is always an option.
 
Twilight Hue

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
A Vestigial Mote said:
Dude... you HAD TO HAVE been joking. Saying that people "DON'T HAVE TO WEAR MASKS" is coercion how exactly? And then the comment to the tune of "demean them if they dont" - what sense does this make. Please explain this.
Click to expand...
Hardly. There's absolutely no reason whatsoever that vaccinated people have to fear anyone without a mask save for others who don't get it for one reason or other. Some just don't want to take it untill all side effects are known. It's their body, their choice.

It's overkill.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top