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

[Stevicus]

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

I think it's just a matter of playing the percentages, which is what they were doing when they mandated masks in the beginning. Masks were not a 100% preventative, but it reduced the odds of getting it or transmitting it.

 

[exchemist]

I agree but isn't stopping the spread of the virus and deaths more important?

B A L A N C E
O F
R I S K S.

 

[We Never Know]

In my opinion the virus was made political and now it seems the vaccine is becoming political. Making it political hurts the validity of it.

 

[We Never Know]

B A L A N C E O F R I S K S.

HARDER TO UNDERSTAND OR GLASSES FOGGING UP DOESN'T COME CLOSE TO COMPARING TO DEATH

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

Yes. Now you got it. That's exactly what I meant.

Your just going to open people up to bullying if they don't want the vaccine yet.

It's a school and people will get bullied over it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Would be even less risk with a mask, which is my point.

Given the inconvenience of (& tremendous resistance to)
mask wearing, then at some point the risk will fall to a
level making masks optional.
I still wear a mask when indoors because of all the
disease ridden humans. And I had no cold this last
winter...first time in memory. Glorious!

 

[Left Coast]

Would be even less risk with a mask, which is my point.

And it would be even less risk if no one ever left their home. Or walked around in bubbles all day. But at a certain point public health experts accept that daily activities incur a certain amount of low risk.

 

[stvdv]

Anyways, nobody should be coerced into getting it until it's fully approved by the FDA. That's my opinion on the matter.

That would be a good step in the right direction ... first fully approved by the FDA
Now they dare not even take responsibility if things go wrong
We had a girl of 28 who got paralyzed, and they did not want to pay her money for getting sick of their vaccine. That is really bad.

 

[exchemist]

Yes. Now you got it. That's exactly what I meant.

Your just going to open people up to bullying if they don't want the vaccine yet.

It's a school and people will get bullied over it.

As I said earlier, the CDC has to advise on what they think is reasonable, from an infection control viewpoint. How the schools use that information, to implement it, is for the schools to work out. There will be a host of issues for them to deal with. I mentioned the need to verify who has been vaccinated, but yes, the presence of a visible difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated children may be problematic to manage in some circumstances.

But at least by issuing this guidance, the CDC helps people start to grapple with how they manage the transition back to life as it was.

And it will be a fact that people who refuse to get vaccinated will be at a social disadvantage. That is only fair on those who have been public-spirited enough to get vaccinated. The unvaccinated can't expect a free ride on the backs of those who have been.

 

[Twilight Hue]

And it would be even less risk if no one ever left their home. Or walked around in bubbles all day. But at a certain point public health experts accept that daily activities incur a certain amount of low risk.

What's your opinion on people who in good faith just want to make sure it's formally approved or already have a natural resistance to Covids effects? Even if they say side effects are rare.

It seems there are some deaths after taking the vaccine as well as those who reported horrible reactions from it while others say they were just fine after taking it.



I heard of a discovery that some blood types are essentially well resistant at the start.

 

[Twilight Hue]

As I said earlier, the CDC has to advise on what they think is reasonable, from an infection control viewpoint. How the schools use that information, to implement it, is for the schools to work out. There will be a host of issues for them to deal with. I mentioned the need to verify who has been vaccinated, but yes, the presence of a visible difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated children may be problematic to manage in some circumstances.

But at least by issuing this guidance, the CDC helps people start to grapple with how they manage the transition back to life as it was.

And it will be a fact that people who refuse to get vaccinated will be at a social disadvantage. That is only fair on those who have been public-spirited enough to get vaccinated. The unvaccinated can't expect a free ride on the backs of those who have been.

Maybe a solution would be distant learning for some and direct classroom time for others.

Just long enough until formal approval occurs by the FDA.

Even I'm entertaining the idea of getting the vaccine but wary until the nessessary approval process has concluded.

 

[exchemist]

I heard of a discovery that some blood types are essentially well resistant at the start.

I think that's putting it a bit too strongly, but there have been studies suggestions blood group A is more susceptible to infection than O, I think. (I got Covid last year and I'm O, by the way.)

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

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.

Oh wait, wait wait... I think I see where you were going. You weren't actually commenting on the "no need to wear masks" as a coercion toward mask-wearing, but as a coercion toward getting vaccinated, is that it? As in, taking away the "masks in public settings" guideline puts the unvaccinated in greater danger/risk, and is therefore some form of coercion being used to try and get everyone vaccinated, is that it? I missed that interpretation initially, because the topic was about the mask wearing.

If you read the article, it very much seems like even the authorities are simply excited about being able to announce and present to people that things are getting more "back to normal." It doesn't, at all, seem to be about trying to scare the unvaccinated into getting vaccines. in fact, there is even a part not too far into the article which mentions that the authorities are NOT advocating for schools making vaccinations required. If anything, what I have seen toward that end is incentives being offered. Like the crazy "Vax-A-Million" lottery/entry type campaign in Ohio.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I think that's putting it a bit too strongly, but there have been studies suggestions blood group A is more susceptible to infection than O, I think. (I got Covid last year and I'm O, by the way.)

Mines AB positive.

I had awful experiences with vaccines in the past making me more concerned as I weigh the risks as to weither I ought to take it or not.

I am in the high risk category so I might still consider taking it if opportunities arise.

I guess it's the only way to find out.

 

[Revoltingest]

Anyways, nobody should be coerced into getting it until it's fully approved by the FDA. That's my opinion on the matter.

"Coercion" is a term with some wiggle room.
One might not be required by law to get vaccinated.
But one might lose some privileges by refusing.
Examples....
Some businesses won't allow unvaccinated people
to work for them. I won't rent an apartment to them
in units with shared air spaces.
I see this as a right of business owners. We should
not be coerced into dealing with people we see as
posing a danger to other workers or tenants.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Oh wait, wait wait... I think I see where you were going. You weren't actually commenting on the "no need to wear masks" as a coercion toward mask-wearing, but as a coercion toward getting vaccinated, is that it? As in, taking away the "masks in public settings" guideline puts the unvaccinated in greater danger/risk, and is therefore some form of coercion being used to try and get everyone vaccinated, is that it? I missed that interpretation initially, because the topic was about the mask wearing.

If you read the article, it very much seems like even the authorities are simply excited about being able to announce and present to people that things are getting more "back to normal." It doesn't, at all, seem to be about trying to scare the unvaccinated into getting vaccines. in fact, there is even a part not too far into the article which mentions that the authorities are NOT advocating for schools making vaccinations required. If anything, what I have seen toward that end is incentives being offered. Like the crazy "Vax-A-Million" lottery/entry type campaign in Ohio.

I'm not saying its a bad incentive, but there had been some accounts where people felt they were not givin choices based on reasonable fears and concerns that leads to hesitation on getting the vaccine.

Like this one...

Breda O’Brien: Healthcare students bullied into taking AstraZeneca vaccine


People just want to be sure. That's all.

 

[exchemist]

Maybe a solution would be distant learning for some and direct classroom time for others.

Just long enough until formal approval occurs by the FDA.

Even I'm entertaining the idea of getting the vaccine but wary until the nessessary approval process has concluded.

I've been vaccinated, as have over 90% of British people in my age group (60-70). Unlike some other countries, relatively few in Britain are worried about getting vaccinated. I think this must be because we trust the National Health Service, which is not profit-driven. But the vaccines themselves are the same ones available in the US, so I don't think there is anything really to worry about. Whereas Covid itself really is potentially nasty. Of that, there is no doubt at all.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Last I heard, which was back in 2020, a typical mask gives 5% protection against infection; so 95% of the time they estimate that being around infected people will get you infected.

How is that calculated? All I know is they were use masks in a lab with mists.

On the other hand if you have the covid virus then that mask protects others 70% of the time. Overall the mask protects other people and not the wearer.

This is what I remember from last year, and I think we discussed it here in the forum.

 

[Revoltingest]

I've been vaccinated, as have over 90% of British people in my age group (60-70). Unlike some other countries, relatively few in Britain are worried about getting vaccinated. I think this must be because we trust the National Health Service, which is not profit-driven. But the vaccines themselves are the same ones available in the US, so I don't think there is anything really to worry about. Whereas Covid itself really is potentially nasty. Of that, there is no doubt at all.

I don't see the profit motive as discouraging people from
vaccination. Instead, it's highly politicized here, with many
hating government control (Republicans), or distrusting
government run medicine (minorities fearing experimentation).
I blame Trump for inspiring many to treat the virus as a big
nothingburger.

Note:
I left out libertarians because even though they (we)
hate government control, all the libertarians I know IRL
are vaccinated. It's just good sense.

 

[Martin]

I don't see the profit motive as discouraging people from
vaccination. Instead, it's highly politicized here, with many
hating government control (Republicans), or distrusting
government run medicine (minorities fearing experimentation).
I blame Trump for inspiring many to treat the virus as a big
nothingburger.

Yes, Trump's ignorant ramblings about the "China flu" and injecting bleach wasn't a good look.