…
Here’s the CDC’s specific guidance for what fully vaccinated people can do:
- "Visit with other fully vaccinated people indoors without wearing masks or physical distancing;
- "Visit with unvaccinated people from a single household who are at low risk for severe COVID-19 disease indoors without wearing masks or physical distancing
- “Refrain from quarantine and testing following a known exposure to COVID-19 if asymptomatic”
The CDC said fully vaccinated people should continue to take these COVID-19 precautions:
- "Take precautions in public like wearing a well-fitted mask and physical distancing
- "Wear masks, practice physical distancing, and adhere to other prevention measures when visiting with unvaccinated people who are at increased risk for severe COVID-19 disease or who have an unvaccinated household member who is at increased risk for severe COVID-19 disease
- "Wear masks, maintain physical distance, and practice other prevention measures when visiting with unvaccinated people from multiple households
- "Avoid medium- and large-sized in-person gatherings
- "Get tested if experiencing COVID-19 symptoms
- "Follow guidance issued by individual employers
- “Follow CDC and health department travel requirements and recommendations”
So claims are about $1,100 per resident? Given 10% unemployment that’d be $11K per claimant. Given that unemployment pays for a year or so under the current congressional actions, that sounds about right to me. Folks are getting less than min wage worth of benefits.
What are you finding strange and why?
fascinating! This is consistent with stuff I’ve read about having a humidifier in the bedroom to reduce your risk of catching respiratory bugs. Not because it prevents exposure, but because it supports the immune function of the mucus membranes.
Interesting. CDC currently says no one should be traveling.
Both of our kids’ grandmothers have been vaccinated fully +2 weeks, and have been asking about visiting. The pushier one has started pushing for a date at the end of April. I wanted to wait for CDC guidance because no one in our house, so far, is vaccinated. Due to underlying conditions, my spouse and I will be eligible for vaccination at the end of this month, but who knows how long it will take to get an appointment and then be fully protected. And, there are still 2 8-year-olds who won’t be.
See post 751 above.
[ETA: Good grief. When I click on that post’s time stamp, it says 751, it really does. However the scroll bar says this is only post 725. Look up about four posts, anyway.]
As I’m reading that info, because you’re not low risk, even though they’re vaccinated they’re not supposed to be around you unless masked and distanced, until you’re also “fully vaccinated”; which I would take to be two weeks after the second dose of the two-shot vaccine.
Recommends might change again by then, I suppose.
True.
I’m not looking forward to that argument. (With my mother-in-law (MIL)). She’s already pushy, and she tends to follow only advice that she likes. She was mad that her sister traveled and visited their mother early in the pandemic, after the sister had recovered from Covid. But she – MIL – has been traveling plenty since then to visit her son’s family, before anyone was vaccinated.
Based on the newly issued CDC guidelines, it might be OK for your kids’ grandparents to visit them.
It wasn’t clear, I guess, but I was quoting Thelma Lou’s quote of the guidelines.
I was pointing out that it may be within the guidelines for them to visit our household, but it isn’t within the guidelines for them to travel, because the guidelines incorporate the travel guidelines, and they’d both have to travel.
@thorny_locust also pointed out that it isn’t within the guidelines because my spouse and I both have underlying conditions that mean we are not low risk.
Sorry for the confusion in my post.
As of today the US has more fully vaccinated persons than verified cases!
While we’ve still got a ways to go, that’s clearly a positive milestone!
But note that smoking (which burns the cilia off) has not been shown to be a risk factor for contracting COVID.
But note that the last outbreak in Melb.vic.au (where I live), was attributed to the use of a humidifier promoting escape of COVID from quarantine.
(That’s a deeply political statement, not a cold scientific fact: I don’t know how they assert the humidifier was involved.)
Really? Is this a technical quibble about proof? Or has the risk been shown to be 100% about pre-existing lung damage? Because being a current or former smoker has been identified as a risk factor pretty much from the beginning.
Very old research, and I probably shouldn’t be quoting it:
French-study-suggests-smokers-at-lower-risk-of-getting-coronavirus | World news | The Guardian.
I responded by wondering if the lowered risk is because cilia are (thought to be) particularly susceptible to COVID: perhaps burning off the layer of epithelial cells which COVID infects offers protection against contracting COVID.
That was only about contracting COVID, not what happens to you after you add COVID to your existing lung disease.
I think those early studies (out of France and China) have been questioned.
https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/497177-suggestion-that-smoking-protects-from-covid-19-may-be-dangerous-to-public
And it’s well-known that smoking increases the the risk of developing symptomatic disease and disease progression
As always, thank you for the kind words. It has indeed been, at times, a slog. It has been good for me as a personal project; having little else to focus on for the past year it has been an at-least regular task.
I fear it isn’t over, tho. The curve down that we’re seeing isn’t the curve that was described months and months ago for either a vaccination or a herd immunity situation, as far as I can recall.
And I can’t help but think of the strategy employed in the game Plague, Inc. where it is better to spread far and wide while being fairly harmless and then mutating into something far swifter and more damaging. America has been at the forefront of providing opportunities for this virus to mutate.
Still, at the moment the news and outlook is mostly good. But as I’ve had to say about nearly every aspect of life for a year now: I guess I’ll just have to wait and see what happens over the next 8-10 weeks.
Again: thank you all for your kind words. The threads are here for and by all of us and for people in the future to see what was happening in a real-time chronological sense. Every post helps create a fuller, more comprehensive picture of our era.
117,750,924 total cases
2,612,186 dead
93,438,021 recovered
In the US:
29,744,652 total cases
538,628 dead
20,449,634 recovered
Yesterday’s numbers for comparison:
I’ve thought about that game a lot since this all started. Especially at the beginning. And when it became clear that New Zealand closed in time. 
Over here in England we are taking the First steps to normality. The schools reopened (with masks and wiping and spreading out).
I hear people on the radio looking forward to festivals and other events in the summer and I can’t help but worry that it will all go horribly wrong,
On the upside, vaccination moves forward impressively and hospital admissions are falling rapidly. They are scheduling non-Covid treatment in an effort to tackle the huge backlog. How many people died because High dependency beds were all taken by Covid sufferers?
In the meantime, we are staying put; masks are still obligatory in shops etc and travel is discouraged.
While I agree with the above quote, the linked study has some major problems and is still a pre-print (which is true of a large number of COVID-19 related research projects). This really isn’t the proper thread to dive into this, so I’ll not do a point by point rebuttal, but I personally wouldn’t take that study into account in my mask purchasing decisions.
While nobody is suggesting taking that study as a guide for mask selection, and it has already attracted rebuttal, I observe that it is already published (on the journal’s open access web site), and has already attracted 8 citations. From January all Cell Press journals have had an open access publishing option.
It’s published as a letter, not an article. Again, this isn’t the place.