COVID Transmissions for 3-9-2021
Good morning and welcome to COVID Transmissions.
It has been 477 days since the first documented human case of COVID-19. In 477 CE, King Aelle of the South Saxons (later known as “Sussex”), landed in Britannia for the first time and began to colonize it. This was not well-received by the local Britons. Unfortunately, Saxon arrows and blades were well-received by the local Britons, for some definition of “well” at least, and Sussex soon expanded. What began as a small family gathering between Aelle and his sons grew into a proper kingdom.
Speaking of small family gatherings, today we have some guidance from the CDC on what fully vaccinated people can do. Also, some items on the differences between various vaccines, and some more international vaccine politics.
As usual, bolded terms are linked to the running newsletter glossary.
Keep COVID Transmissions growing by sharing it! Share the newsletter, not the virus. I love talking about science and explaining important concepts in human health, but I rely on all of you to grow the audience for this, which you can do by using this button here:
Now, let’s talk COVID.
CDC announces guidelines for vaccinated people
The CDC has, finally, issued guidelines for what fully vaccinated people can safely do. Here is what they say:
Fully vaccinated people can:
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 if asymptomatic
For now, fully vaccinated people should continue to:
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
Full guidelines here: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated-guidance.html
These guidelines do not mean that all of the “allowed” activities are 100% safe. However, nothing in life is 100% safe. Before the pandemic there was a chance that we might get into some kind of deadly or debilitating misadventure any time we left our homes to visit others. These same risks still exist, but COVID-19 poses a new one. What I would like to think is that these guidelines, in the case of a fully vaccinated person, reduces the risk to that person and to others to where it is comparable to other, everyday risks that we accept.
If you are a fully vaccinated person, I recommend paying close attention to these guidelines and also noting that the words are carefully chosen. As an example, notice that it says “visit with unvaccinated people from a single household who are at low risk for severe COVID-19…” It intentionally says a single household. It intentionally says “who are at low risk.” If either of these isn’t satisfied, don’t do the visit.
This is meant to limit the potential harm a vaccinated carrier might be able to do, and that’s important. We are pretty sure that the vaccine limits your ability to transmit the virus, but this limitation isn’t perfect. There’s still a small chance of it happening. The guidelines are intended to protect people while allowing the vaccinated some relief from the intense and interminable restrictions the pandemic has brought.
I’m a little envious, but I’m also very happy for all of you fully vaccinated folks out there who can start seeing small groups of friends and loved ones again. Go enjoy it!
Differences between the vaccines matter
The Atlantic has an article arguing that there are subtle differences between the vaccines that do matter, while the message from public health officials and scientists has generally been that they are equivalent: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/03/pfizer-moderna-and-johnson-johnson-vaccines-compared/618226/
I don’t agree with everything the author of this article has to say. For example, I think this author is far too ready to cross-compare very different clinical studies, when we really can’t do that, but at the same time quibbles on very fine points of trial design while glossing over this general limitation of what she’s suggesting.
Still, I don’t think my own opinion is a good reason to avoid sharing an article with all of you. The author points out that there are subtle aspects of each vaccine that give them different profiles that affect the best circumstances for their deployment and use. She also points out rightly that clinical trials are not always designed to give us definitive answers. Both of these things are true, and I think it’s important that we recognize these facts in messaging about the vaccines.
Ultimately, her point is that adult humans, the current market for these vaccines, can appreciate nuance and subtlety about their relative performance. She’s very right about that.
More politics of vaccination: Russia spreading misinformation about Pfizer
Business Insider reports that intelligence services believe Russian disinformation sites are actively trying to undermine public confidence in the Pfizer mRNA vaccine: https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-trying-to-sow-public-doubt-about-pfizer-covid19-vaccine-2021-3
There may be many reasons they are doing this, but the article speculates that they are trying to improve the export market for Russia’s own vaccine, Sputnik V, by undermining a competitor. It is also possible they are very happy with the US being harmed by the pandemic and would like to extend that state of affairs as long as possible. Either way, it’s morally reprehensible. Faced with this historic crisis, there are some folks who apparently will always try to turn such a situation to their own advantage. Vladimir Putin seems to be one of those folks.
What am I doing to cope with the pandemic? This:
Furniture shopping intensifies
I’m moving, as I’ve said here, and since the space I’m moving to is substantially larger, there’s a lot of stuff that we need to get in order to move in.
Normally this wouldn’t be such a problem—though I do hate furniture stores—but the pandemic has made it even worse. Global supply lines for various places are totally snarled, going to the physical stores is complicated, and delivery times are a mess too.
As a result I’ve been cranky, irritable, and overly busy. But I do feel like it’s going to be worth it for the sake of having a little more space for my wife and I to work and live.
You might have some questions or comments! Send them in. As several folks have figured out, you can also email me if you have a comment that you don’t want to share with the whole group.
Join the conversation, and what you say will impact what I talk about in the next issue.
Also, let me know any other thoughts you might have about the newsletter. I’d like to make sure you’re getting what you want out of this.
Part of science is identifying and correcting errors. If you find a mistake, please tell me about it.
Though I can’t correct the emailed version after it has been sent, I do update the online post of the newsletter every time a mistake is brought to my attention.
No corrections since last issue.
See you all next time.
Always,
JS