In reply to: And yet it was the basis for the complete posted by Steelhop
Has the CDC ever released any data on those thresholds or were the numbers just plucked out of thin air?
Do those definitions which are based on case counts matter anymore? Now that we have 3 approved vaccines that are widely available and there has been a de-linkage between the old math of cases - hospitalizations - deaths why have are we still looking at cases. The percent of hospitalizations per case has gone way down.
Low Transmission: <10 per 100k cases in the past week and <5% positive test results in the past week
Moderate: 10-49 cases per 100k or 5-7.99% positive
Substantial: 50-99 cases per 100k or 8-9.99% positive
High: >100 cases per 100k or >10% positivity
I know what the categories are. How did they pick those case counts as the definition for low, moderate, high substantial. Have they shown the reasoning behind that?
And last fall/winter case counts meant something different than they do today. We should be looking at hospitalizations, not cases. And if you still want to use cases (since they are a leading indicator) using the same numbers are last year is makes no sense since the percent of hospitalizations to cases has gone way down with the vaccines.
with vaccines"?
The 7 day average of new cases peaked on January 7 at about 260,000 per day. The 7 day average of hospitalizations on January 11 at about 140,000.
Yesterday the 7 day average of new cases as about 80,000 and the 7 day average of hospitalizations was about 45,000.
Now vs January
Two questions: (a) where do the numbers to back up the claim above come from?
and (b) why would we even expect it to be so since the preponderance of current cases and hospitalizations are among the non-vaccinated?
I was relying on the data from the UK in my mind and the local NY data - hadn't checked the national data in a week or so.
Deaths are still way down because the most vulnerable group at 65+ is heavily vaccinated. Let's hope it stays that way as the cases peak in the next couple of weeks.
The vax/non-vax cohorts are not the same, specifically by age. The older who were far more likely to have serious cases are much more likely to be vaxed. So the pool of non-vaxed people skews younger which inherently will have a much lower hospitalization/cases rate, just like if we compared a group of young professionals to senior citizens.
Obviously not 1-to-1 but the unvaccinated are mostly not elderly.
when we match the peak in new cases with the (presumably) later peak in deaths.
Hospitalizations may be more correlated with obesity, etc. which may be more prevalent among the unvaccinated than they are in the population as a whole. Any theoretical break in the relationship is certainly not evident in the data so far.
I assume that is a factor of vaccination rates and ages (UK vaccination rate is 75%+ for all age groups 40 yrs +).
Repeating my post from last week:
UK heavily vaccinated as well. July cases peak hit 80% of the January surge peak (7 day average cases of 46,837 in June vs 59,417 in January).
However, deaths (still rising) seem to be on pace to be less than 10% of the January surge peak (deaths are still trending up, the 8 days after the July cases peak the 7 day average death number is 71 vs 1,121 average 8 days after the January cases peak).
Vaccines may not be able to eliminate positive tests. But they do seem to be effective at minimizing hospitalizations and deaths among the vulnerable.
The majority of the vulnerable are easily identified by age. Protecting the vulnerable from hospitalization and death is an achievable goal and can be accomplished by vaccinating the vulnerable.
Looks like hospitalizations are peaking now. Cases are falling almost as quickly as they rose.
The Dutch recently caught up to the UK in the vaccination program.
based on the state's vaccinated/unvaccinated demographics for expected hospitalizations and deaths when the delta variant surge hits a state to help state hospital systems plan.
For example, Israel is continuing to struggle with delta. My guess is that the vaxxed/unvaxxed communities don't mix all that much due to religious differences, while in the NL and other parts of Europe (Portugal is showing a similar pattern) the headline vaxxed number is more realistic for the population as a whole.
My sense is that the US is more like Israel in that some of the unvaxxed communities are isolated enclaves by choice.
and there is also the question if the relationship of "cases" (as in positive test result) actually has the same relationship to actual infections in the community, as anecdotally (but many anecdotes) it seems people aren't getting covid tests for every little cough like we were back in the winter and spring.
and people who are vaccinated aren't getting tested for every sniffle like you said.
So the positive number of tests is surely not catching all the cases.
Trying to use them to trigger mitigation measures would be closing the door after the horse has left the barn.
since the linkage between cases leading to hospitalizations has been dramatically changed.
I guess we can extrapolate from the UK, but I'm not sure what numbers you're asking them to use.
We tied closing schools and businesses to them.
I’m sure there’s a good reason for these levels, and no they aren’t new and have been on the website for months.
I would like to see the rationale behind them. I can't find it on the CDC's site.
The numbers should be updated to reflect the current situation with vaccines in play
...I don't see how the data would change.
If you want to say that unvaccinated need to wear masks at those thresholds have at it, doesn't make sense for vaccinated folks.
And I quote " It was sex. Don’t have sex with and French kiss a Covid positive person." On July 1st, the 7 day moving average of cases in all of Massachusetts was 61. So all of Massachusetts much less P-Town was not in the high or substantial high part of the country back on July 4th - so in other words under the nonsense CDC guidelines they wouldn't have had to wear masks anyway.
But, that calls out questionable behavior in specific demographic that might partake in riskier behavior than others. Just better to force everyone to wear masks inside and not delineate the two issues.
ability of vaccinated people to transmit that led to the change in recommendations:
“This finding is concerning and was a pivotal discovery leading to CDC’s updated mask recommendation,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said in a statement released on Friday. “The masking recommendation was updated to ensure the vaccinated public would not unknowingly transmit virus to others, including their unvaccinated or immunocompromised loved ones.”
Why we vaccinated people don’t have to worry about vaccine escape is because the reason so many vaccinated people got sick was they engaged in the riskiest activity known. The OP was concerned about what this meant for them, my first post was soothing their fear.
My reply to your post stands though, no matter how you get it, if you get it, your as infectious as a non vaxxed individual. Remember the whole my mask protects you thing? We need to protect the vulnerable (children, immunosuppressed people, not antivaxxers) from the disease. When there is such a high amount of community spread their is a higher chance of a vaxxed person getting Covid (it’s 10x less but it’s not zero) that’s why the mask thing is in place.
--no matter how you get it, if you get it, your as infectious as a non vaxxed individual--
That hasn't been established. What has been established is that a rejected study comparing the viral loads in India showing comparable viral loads for those that have been vaccinated with vaccine that isn't available in the US (Sinovac?) is comparable to a nonvaccinated. Viral load while important doesn't establish the total story on infectiousness. Typically, viral load is used to monitor therapy/recovery and doesn't expressly provide infectiousness ability.
--Remember the whole my mask protects you thing? --
And? All that does is create the basis for several arguments
1) Why should I get vaccinated if I have to wear a mask if I am vaccinated. This gets to the off ramp from the original poster's question.
2) It creates the argument that every time a variant comes along we are going to mask up. Because if you look out in the internet there is talk of Gamma from South America. Sorry, but society isn't going to live like that even though you as an individual might.
--We need to protect the vulnerable (children, immunosuppressed people, not antivaxxers) from the disease
Children have not been an issue since the beginning and continue to not be an issue. As for immunosuppressed, we didn't think about it prior to 3/20 and we shouldn't now. Seems harsh but society is bigger than a very small segment. Sometimes you need to take your own precautions because I am generally not under a duty to protect you.
--When there is such a high amount of community spread their is a higher chance of a vaxxed person getting Covid (it’s 10x less but it’s not zero) that’s why the mask thing is in place.--
And, as I said before, this wasn't an issue in early July when events were conspiring in P-town and there wasn't a high amount of community spread so there wouldn't have been any such recommendations at that point anyway. Otherwise, your argument is we should always wear masks - regardless if there is no evidentiary support to masks actually working to do what you think masks do.
If you want to wear a mask, social distance and not generally partake in life, have at it. But, most people aren't going to agree to those position.
But, seriously, what is your off-ramp?
It’s simple, you don’t need a mask unless the spread in your area is high or substantial. This peak is going to crest and fall back to those levels in about 4-6 weeks max. Then you can take the mask off.
a reliable metric of determining severity. As Mintirish noted above WRT to the CDC numbers related to "high or substantial" there are issues with that.
First, there is no evidentiary backing as to why those were picked. What if they should be lower?
Second, it doesn't take into account testing numbers. More tests, more cases.
Third, as it was originally stated way back 500+ days ago that we are doing all this to prevent overwhelming our hospitals. There has been a decoupling of cases from hospitalizations and deaths.
Lastly, said standard wouldn't have stopped the outbreak generated in P-town that was basis for the White House deciding they wanted to change the policies. As you stated above "It was sex. Don’t have sex with and French kiss a Covid positive person."
At least for hospitalizations. Since the majority of the cases are amongst the unvaccinated, this makes sense.
Do you have data that shows otherwise?
but here you go.
Cases link from Worldmeters - https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/
Now, look at the two peaks - the winter UK peak and the peak from late July. Top end for July cases was just under 50K daily cases. Top end for winter was 67K.
Now, look at hospitalizations.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/uk-daily-covid-admissions
In the winter top end of hospitalizations was about 3700. Top end of hospitalizations in July was 739 and it is already going down.
Some of it is likely due to the type of patient going into the hospital. Less elderly being ineffected.