CDC Spreads Confusion and Anger With a Stunning Covid Reversal

Mish

The CDC pulled its guidelines on how Covid spreads by aerosols shortly after posting them online.

CDC Reverses Guidelines

In a move sure to cause confusion the CDC Removes Guidelines Saying Coronavirus Can Spread From Tiny Air Particles.

For months, the CDC said the new coronavirus is primarily transmitted between people in close contact through large droplets that land in the mouths or noses of people nearby. On Friday, however, it added that tiny particles known as aerosols could transmit the virus.  Then abruptly on Monday, the CDC reversed course and removed the additions. Much of the guidelines’ earlier description of Covid-19 transmission, emphasizing spread via large droplets, was restored.

The agency last week walked back a controversial recommendation that close contacts of Covid-19 patients don’t need to get tested if they don’t have symptoms.

“The tide had turned toward science when the CDC said” aerosol transmission is possible, said Joseph Allen, a health scientist and director of Harvard University’s Healthy Buildings program, which studies how buildings affect human health. “It was a watershed moment where people would believe this.” “To backtrack instantly is devastating,” he said.

Expert Opinion

Aerosol and respiratory viruses experts have been arguing for months that Covid-19 is an airborne virus, pointing to studies of outbreaks that have shown that the new coronavirus spread even when close contact among people was avoided.

More than 200 scientists asked public-health agencies, in a letter published in July in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, to acknowledge airborne transmission of Covid-19.

Aerosol transmission makes sense given the super-spreader church and choir transmissions we have seen.  

Huge?

I believe we need another spin to be sure.

Spin the Wheel 

Damn that Wheel, It Keeps Changing

What's Going On?

Most likely Trump.

Transmission by aerosols impacts school and job reopenings.

It also impacts Trump's stance on reasons to vote in person.

Mish

Comments (72)
No. 1-31
Augustthegreat
Augustthegreat

King Donald: l’etat, c’est moi! You subjects are all disposable to me!

PecuniaNonOlet
PecuniaNonOlet

At this point anyone wanting to follow an arrogant blind man (Trump) off a cliff are welcome to do so, he clearly doesnt give a damn anyway so his followers should fulfill their fate.

Here is what I think is going to happen.

  1. Ineffective vaccine will be “released” right before election.
  2. Everyone breathes a sign of relief and assumes the worst is over and return to normal.
  3. Infection rates spikes followed by spikes in hospitalizations and deaths.
  4. Trump will claim its the flu not coronavirus.
Eddie_T
Eddie_T

Most likely Trump.....and weak, easily manipulated bureaucrats at the CDC.

One important takeaway from 4 years of Trump.....America has a sycophant problem.

The only thing most virologists can agree on is that COVD wasn't man-made....because they ALL benefit from that little white lie.

Maximus_Minimus
Maximus_Minimus

The point of this is: plain cloth face masks do not protect well, but who would cheap out, and not buy a three layer mask with carbon filter.
There is a difference between face masks.
Kudos to CDC for admitting they don't know what they're doing.
Can they switch roles with the FED since both have similar track records?

Jojo
Jojo

The Keystone Kops would be proud of the CDC!

moshe
moshe

Re "Most likely Trump": “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” – Christopher Hitchens

Greggg
Greggg
 Back in July, a group of 200 scientists sent a letter to the WHO urging the international public health agency to change its guidance on the spread of the disease. The problem scientists argued is that the WHO hasn't updated its views to incorporate new research showing that aerosol spread is a much greater threat than touching contaminated surfaces, or via large droplets spread by close contact between individuals.
 Yet, the WHO has refused these overtures, and this week it successfully convinced the CDC to do the same.https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/stunning-reversal-cdc-says-it-published-new-guidance-risks-airborne-covid-19-error
Casual_Observer
Casual_Observer

Given the CDC was put under HHS last week, we know the Trump himself or at the very least Alex Azar is responsible. So now we can't trust a vaccine anymore from Trump. Biden was right about this last week. In fact he was prescient.

nlightn
nlightn

What we know for sure is two things,...1- both the CDC (Center for Damage Control) and the FED (F'ing Educated Dunces) are never right, none of the time. 2- it's a Forret Gump moment for both,.."Stupid is as stupid does!"

Jojo
Jojo

This is all part of a long chain of failures that this article covers nicely. Events don't occur singly and in a vacuum.

An Avalanche of Failure
Jon Murphy
– September 21, 2020

Sechel
Sechel

Shambolic. Like two children fighting over the Atari joystick. How can the public have faith in the CDC with such obvious political interference

RonJ
RonJ

"Transmission by aerosols impacts school and job reopenings."

Only if they want to continue to suppress herd immunity.

Only 17% of the passengers on the Diamond Princess got sick. It came out recently that upward of 50% of people may have T cell immunity, due to previous exposure to other corona viruses. 50 +17 is 67, which is considered to be the threshold of herd immunity.

Also, i saw a Sky News Youtube video the other day, which covered a story on a review of hydroxychloroquine studies. The review was positive toward HCQ.
From Dr. Zelenko's study, early on, it was obvious to me that HCQ worked, in concert with zinc, when given at the first sign of symptoms.

Despite the debunking of a negative study that Lancet later retracted, the FDA has continued to block doctors from prescribing it to their patients. Politics, not medicine, rules.

Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab

Also at issue is the presumption that CDC is minimally competent. Like any government department, hard work, talent, creative thinking, creativity, responsibility, motivation... fall far short of salary levels.
Government: you get less than you pay for.

Example: at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, CDC did not have enough masks. Their response: 'you don't need masks.' The creative response: Trump announces here's a website with patterns, these are the materials to use, for every mask you make at home, CDC will buy for $5. Take them to your local Walgreens... Distribute masks. In 3-4 days, there are more masks than the USA can use.

Six000mileyear
Six000mileyear

I like my work from home arrangement. My commute is very safe. I have no interruptions. I can play my radio. My office has a window with a nice view. So I hope my employer will agree with the findings that COVID-1 can be transmitted through aerosol.

Sechel
Sechel

No draft. Drafts contain spelling or stylistic errors this was core

Nickelodeon
Nickelodeon

If people were empowered/allowed to make their own decisions to do what is best for themselves based on their situation it wouldn't matter how many times the CDC has been wrong.

People can self-isolate if worried about Covid-19 to a degree not possible even 15 years ago. They can sit at home and order everything from Amazon. Why should 99.6% of the population suffer for the vast majority of patients that die via a combination of old age and comorbidities?

Freedom has risk, but there's a significant % of the population that doesn't want either.

dr smock
dr smock

There has never been a corona virus vaccine for any disease. Let's hope things change.
"He said the challenge is that coronaviruses have historically been hard to make safe vaccines for, partly because the virus infects the upper respiratory tract, which our immune system isn't great at
protecting"One of the problems with corona vaccines in the past has been that when the immune response does cross over to where the virus-infected cells are it actually increases the pathology rather than reducing it," Professor Frazer said."So that immunisation with SARS corona vaccine caused, in animals, inflammation in the lungs which wouldn't otherwise have been there if the vaccine hadn't been given."
.https://www.abc.net.au/news/health/2020-04-17/coronavirus-vaccine-ian-frazer/12146616

Coronavirus vaccine challenges
Past research on vaccines for coronaviruses has also identified some challenges to developing a COVID-19 vaccine, including:
Ensuring vaccine safety. Several vaccines for SARS have been tested in animals. Most of the vaccines improved the animals' survival but didn't prevent infection. Some vaccines also caused complications, such as lung damage. A COVID-19 vaccine will need to be thoroughly tested to make sure it's safe for humans.

It’s possible, Roper fears, that COVID-19 could be a virus that proves resistant to vaccination. “This may be one,” she says. “If we have one, this is going to be it, I think.” The FDA has never approved a vaccine for humans that is effective against any member of the coronavirus family, which includes SARS, MERS, and several that cause the common cold.

Webej
Webej

There are a number of C19 related things that have absolutely not been elucidated.

–One is the relative weight of various vectors (aerosol, droplet, oral-fecal, fomites).
–Another is the relative importance of transmission nodes and the reasons why (nursing homes, hospitals/care facilities, restaurants apparently not, etc).
–Another is the presence in sewage weeks before there are any cases, and persistent stories of earlier spread than the commonly accepted time-line.

These are not easy issues to ascertain, since tracing a transmission pathway is actually quite difficult to prove.

FactsonJoe
FactsonJoe

From the WHO, I bolded the important parts:

Airborne transmission

Airborne transmission is defined as the spread of an infectious agent caused by the dissemination of droplet nuclei (aerosols) that remain infectious when suspended in air over long distances and time.(11) <b>Airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 can occur during medical procedures that generate aerosols (“aerosol generating procedures”)</b>.(12) WHO, together with the scientific community, has been actively discussing and evaluating whether SARS-CoV-2 may also spread through aerosols in the absence of aerosol generating procedures, particularly in indoor settings with poor ventilation.

The physics of exhaled air and flow physics have generated <b>hypotheses</b> about possible mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2 transmission through aerosols.(13-16) These <b>theories</b> suggest that 1) a number of respiratory droplets generate microscopic aerosols (<5 µm) by evaporating, and 2) normal breathing and talking results in exhaled aerosols. Thus, a susceptible person could inhale aerosols, and could become infected if the aerosols contain the virus in sufficient quantity to cause infection within the recipient. <b>However, the proportion of exhaled droplet nuclei or of respiratory droplets that evaporate to generate aerosols, and the infectious dose of viable SARS-CoV-2 required to cause infection in another person are not known,</b> but it has been studied for other respiratory viruses.(17)

One experimental study quantified the amount of droplets of various sizes that remain airborne during normal speech. <b>However, the authors acknowledge that this relies on the independent action hypothesis, which has not been validated for humans and SARS-CoV-2.</b>(18) Another recent <b>experimental model</b> found that healthy individuals can produce aerosols through coughing and talking (19), and another <b>model</b> suggested high variability between individuals in terms of particle emission rates during speech, with increased rates correlated with increased amplitude of vocalization.(20) <b>To date, transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by this type of aerosol route has not been demonstrated;</b> much more research is needed given the possible implications of such route of transmission.

<b>Experimental studies have generated aerosols of infectious samples using high-powered jet nebulizers under controlled laboratory conditions.</b> These studies found SARS-CoV-2 virus RNA in air samples within aerosols for up to 3 hours in one study (21) and 16 hours in another, which also found viable replication-competent virus.(22) <b>These findings were from experimentally induced aerosols that do not reflect normal human cough conditions.</b>

Some studies conducted in health care settings where symptomatic COVID-19 patients were cared for, but where aerosol generating procedures were not performed, reported the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in air samples (23-28), while <b>other similar investigations in both health care and non-health care settings found no presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA; no studies have found viable virus in air samples.(29-36) </b>Within samples where SARS-CoV-2 RNA was found, the quantity of RNA detected was in extremely low numbers in large volumes of air and one study that found SARS-CoV-2 RNA in air samples reported inability to identify viable virus. (25) The detection of RNA using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)-based assays is not necessarily indicative of replication- and infection-competent (viable) virus that could be transmissible and capable of causing infection.(37)

in short:
1.
Airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 can occur during medical procedures that generate aerosols (“aerosol generating procedures”)
2.
There are lots of hypotheses, theories and models made by scientists who want to get things published but these are hypotheses and theories and models based on these hypotheses and theories.
3.
However, the proportion of exhaled droplet nuclei or of respiratory droplets that evaporate to generate aerosols, and the infectious dose of viable SARS-CoV-2 required to cause infection in another person are not known,
4.
To date, transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by this type of aerosol route has not been demonstrated;
5.
Experimental studies have generated aerosols of infectious samples using high-powered jet nebulizers under controlled laboratory conditions.
These findings were from experimentally induced aerosols that do not reflect normal human cough conditions.
6.
other similar investigations in both health care and non-health care settings found no presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA; no studies have found viable virus in air samples.(29-36)

In even shorter:
CDC made a major mistake to put out the claim that Coronavirus spreads in aerosols and there is absolutely NO PROOF that Coronavirus spreads in Aerosols even though it has been detected in some studies in aerosols but it NEVER has been demonstrated that it spreads in aerosols and no studies have found viable virus in air samples.(29-36)

It seems those at CDC that put that CDC claim out WANTED to CAUSE PANIC that is NOT supported by Science or WHO.

Maybe it has something to do with this:
Out of 8,000 Federal Donations Made to PACs and Politicians by CDC Employees in the Last Five Years, FEC Records Show Only 5 Went to Republican Causes

FactsonJoe
FactsonJoe

Scientific evidence and WHO do NOT support the CDC claims that they were forced to withdraw.

It is a black eye for CDC that those claims ever saw the light of day since they are ANTI-Science and if CDC would have let those claims stand CDC would have destroyed their reputation.

in short:
1.
Airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 can occur during medical procedures that generate aerosols (“aerosol generating procedures”)
2.
There are lots of hypotheses, theories and models made by scientists who want to get things published but these are hypotheses and theories and models based on these hypotheses and theories.
3.
However, the proportion of exhaled droplet nuclei or of respiratory droplets that evaporate to generate aerosols, and the infectious dose of viable SARS-CoV-2 required to cause infection in another person are not known,
4.
To date, transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by this type of aerosol route has not been demonstrated;
5.
Experimental studies have generated aerosols of infectious samples using high-powered jet nebulizers under controlled laboratory conditions.
These findings were from experimentally induced aerosols that do not reflect normal human cough conditions.
6.
other similar investigations in both health care and non-health care settings found no presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA; no studies have found viable virus in air samples.(29-36)

In even shorter:
CDC made a major mistake to put out the claim that Coronavirus spreads in aerosols and there is absolutely NO PROOF that Coronavirus spreads in Aerosols even though it has been detected in some studies in aerosols but it NEVER has been demonstrated that it spreads in aerosols and no studies have found viable virus in air samples.(29-36)

It seems those at CDC that put that CDC claim out WANTED to CAUSE PANIC that is NOT supported by Science or WHO.

Maybe it has something to do with this:
Out of 8,000 Federal Donations Made to PACs and Politicians by CDC Employees in the Last Five Years, FEC Records Show Only 5 Went to Republican Causes

Sechel
Sechel

Olivia Troye, a former aide to Vice President Pence and the White House coronavirus task force, tweeted she has seen some of these “changes” in guidelines occur firsthand.

“This is likely what happened: @CDCgov tried to warn & tell the truth, it didn’t fit the President’s narrative & someone got an angry call. This is so dangerous for the American people,” Troye wrote.

NewUlm
NewUlm

You are right aerosol keeps the fear porn going with schools and offices - let's crush the working poor! But, it 100% destroys the need for any mask - for an aerosol anything less than an N95 is worthless. Not that they work all that well for respiratory droplet - there are ZERO RCTs or studies outside of the lab that have a measurable impact in the reduction of spread - "may" and "might" is not science.

Casual_Observer2020
Casual_Observer2020

Fauci this morning : You can be sure Covid-19 cases have occurred because of airborne transmission.

Eddie_T
Eddie_T

I bet on my mask ( and my patients' masks) saving my life every day when I show up for work. That's how confident I am that masks work, if worn correctly and in concert with other good infection control practices. I've been saying COVID looked to be airborne since March. It isn't as transmissible as say, measles or smallpox, but it's very contagious for droplets alone. The numbers always supported some level of airborne transmission.

BaronAsh
BaronAsh

I gather from his remarks that Mish thinks that the CDC is in Trump's pocket and only does what he wants.
Am amazed he has the hutzpah to keep putting himself out there as a keen observer of US politics and finance.
Talk about not seeing what's going on.....

WildBull
WildBull

Let's trust the science. ROTFL

WildBull
WildBull

I see my take on it got deleted. What I'm seeing is too weird to be incompetence.


Global Economics

FEATURED
COMMUNITY