7 ms·

Yeah, this is not a slide of recommendations; that’s describing the model assumptions illustrated by the charts. Essentially, it says “these charts don’t includ

Yeah, this is not a slide of recommendations; that’s describing the model assumptions illustrated by the charts. Essentially, it says “these charts don’t include modeling the impact of any additional mitigations aside from masking”; these charts show that we must enforce universal masking immediately at minimum. On the last slide, “Next Steps for CDC”, they explicitly list: > ▪ Prevention > – Consider vaccine mandates for HCP to protect vulnerable populations > – Universal masking for source control and prevention > – Reconsider other community mitigation strategies Which means they definitely think additional mitigations are worthwhile, but we must start with at least masking. They have a hard job to communicate the specific recommended actions while remaining calm and not causing a panic or making people think that they are over reacting… with everyone ready to jump on them, I do not envy the job.

sbierwagen 5y ago
I feel like we are in complete agreement on the facts, but are somehow coming to opposite conclusions. Slide 21, bold red text, surrounded by a red box: "Given higher transmissibility and current vaccine coverage, universal masking is essential to reduce transmission of the Delta variant" If this is supposed to imply that restaurants need to be closed, I feel like it should instead actually explicitly say that, because it means firing a million people, again. If universal masking requires restaurant closing, then masking by itself won't do anything! If masking by itself does nothing, then why dedicate two slides to just masking? If masking does nothing, why give it 40-60% effectiveness? If the graph is totally worthless and means nothing useful, why put it in the presentation? If closing restaurants is mission critical, absolutely required for any other NPI to have any effect at all, then why hide it inside "Reconsider other community mitigation strategies" on the last slide?
- mafuy 5y ago
  I think you've misunderstood the slide. It says: If we do no other mitigations other than wearing masks (3 variants in the graph), this is what happens. If additional stuff is done, then the risk goes down. It does not say how much, maybe a little, maybe a lot. But such other mitigations are unlikely to happen if the easiest, most effective and most accepted way, wearing masks, is not enforced already. That's why it makes sense to look at the case of masks-only.

sbierwagen 5y ago

I feel like we are in complete agreement on the facts, but are somehow coming to opposite conclusions. Slide 21, bold red text, surrounded by a red box: "Given higher transmissibility and current vaccine coverage, universal masking is essential to reduce transmission of the Delta variant" If this is supposed to imply that restaurants need to be closed, I feel like it should instead actually explicitly say that, because it means firing a million people, again. If universal masking requires restaurant closing, then masking by itself won't do anything! If masking by itself does nothing, then why dedicate two slides to just masking? If masking does nothing, why give it 40-60% effectiveness? If the graph is totally worthless and means nothing useful, why put it in the presentation? If closing restaurants is mission critical, absolutely required for any other NPI to have any effect at all, then why hide it inside "Reconsider other community mitigation strategies" on the last slide?

mafuy 5y ago
I think you've misunderstood the slide. It says: If we do no other mitigations other than wearing masks (3 variants in the graph), this is what happens. If additional stuff is done, then the risk goes down. It does not say how much, maybe a little, maybe a lot. But such other mitigations are unlikely to happen if the easiest, most effective and most accepted way, wearing masks, is not enforced already. That's why it makes sense to look at the case of masks-only.