Covid outbreak at CDC gathering infects 181 disease detectives
arstechnica.com“Nearly all of the attendees were vaccinated, but 70% said they didn't mask.”
Why is the mask thing even mentioned, it was dubious as hell when they first pushed it but study after study comes out showing they don’t stop spread
But then again, the CDC was pushing the idea that getting vaccinated means you won’t get sick so I guess believing the CDC holds some scientific validity is an error to begin
> but study after study comes out showing they don’t stop spread
But does it stop individual infection? Studies show that lower quality masks and poor masking rigor may mean it's not effective for a large, lax, population, but do you have evidence that the proper use of an N95 doesn't markedly reduce the chance of an individual becoming infected with COVID?
I also would like to know what percentage of people masking at the event was infected. A lot of interesting data points are missing.
> But then again, the CDC was pushing the idea that getting vaccinated means you won’t get sick so I guess believing the CDC holds some scientific validity is an error to begin
There was a chance that this was going to be true. It didn't turn out that way. You're basically blaming them for trying, or what is your point?
I don't recall the CDC saying that if you got vaccinated you'd never ever get sick.
COVID vaccines have a well measured non-zero efficacy.
> but study after study comes out showing they don’t stop spread
I'm curious to hear what studies you were thinking of. FWIW, N95 filter material has been repeatedly seen to block viral particles.
In the Cochrane review [1] they found
> relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusion
That is, studies which took a random group of people and said "please wear a mask, so we can see if you catch less $DISEASE," weren't effective...because people wouldn't wear the mask. This is, I think, a useful result--but it doesn't mean that wearing a mask doesn't stop disease from spreading; it means that telling people to wear a mask doesn't work so well.
[1]: https://www.cochrane.org/CD006207/ARI_do-physical-measures-s...
edit:
> it was dubious as hell when they first pushed it
But why? Why was it dubious that respiratory protection would be effective against a respiratory virus?
Kinda sucks that everybody stopped studying COVID once the Vaccinated super spreader events started popping off.
Here's hoping they don't have four comorbidities, because that plus covid equals trouble. Actually four comorbidities minus covid also equals trouble.
How many only knew because of increased testing?
How many had mild cases?
Were there any severe cases?
In other news, being an expert in disease transmission does not make your immune system better.
To partially answer, according to the CDC release, there were zero hospitalizations: https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2023/s0526-eis.html
* 181 (13%) respondents reported testing positive for SARS-CoV-2
* Of those who reported testing positive, 52% reported no known prior COVID-19 infection
* 1,435 (99.4%) of respondents reported at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose
* 49 (27%) of the respondents who tested positive received antiviral medications
* 70% of respondents reported not wearing a mask; the event coincided with a period of low COVID-19 Community Levels, where masking is not recommended in CDC guidance
* None were hospitalized
Spock eyebrow /