CDC loosens COVID guidelines

With remarks on the current COVID climate.

Yesterday the CDC has loosened its COVID guidelines and provided a more “streamlined” approach:

Today, CDC is streamlining its COVID-19 guidance to help people better understand their risk, how to protect themselves and others, what actions to take if exposed to COVID-19, and what actions to take if they are sick or test positive for the virus. COVID-19 continues to circulate globally, however, with so many tools available to us for reducing COVID-19 severity, there is significantly less risk of severe illness, hospitalization and death compared to earlier in the pandemic.

From cdc.gov. Click the above headline for a link to the article.

Streamlined is kind of a funny word coming from the CDC. They aren’t quite known for being transparent and having a way with words. For example, let’s take a look at these new “streamlined” guidelines. A quick warning for possible squinting (I wanted to fit all of the guidelines):

Note that there’s a remark about wearing a high quality mask, yet makes no mention of what constitutes a “high quality mask”. Also, irrespective of the severity of symptoms it should probably be emphasized that those who are ill should reduce how often they go out- that’s something we should have learned and adopted from COVID, rather than having people with the cold or flu showing up at the office. Why not just tell people to stay home until their symptoms go away?

I’ll let other people pick away at the more inconsistent or incoherent guidelines if they can find additional ones.

All of this comes at a strange time. It was only a few weeks ago that we were warned that Ba.4/Ba.5 would be the death of all of us. And let me remind you, this came from both sides who have pointed fingers at one another arguing that it’s either the vaccinated or unvaccinated driving this new wave. Let’s not kid ourselves and pretend that we all didn’t have a hand in stoking fear and paranoia.

Regardless, why provide this messaging now? Why tell people that we’re going to have a “summer of death” so to speak, only to come out with such guidelines.

Just last week it was reported that Dr. Fauci warned people that they should get boosters or “you’re going to get into trouble” based on, of course, a new variant of concerned labeled Ba.4.6.

From fortune.com. Click on the above headline for a link to the article.

Reading this article wouldn’t inspire any argument in favor of normalcy. On the contrary, it just seems like more reasons to be scared¹. Winter is coming after all (screw fall I suppose!):

Anyone who hasn’t had all their COVID vaccination shots could be in for a difficult time as the colder seasons approach and the virus continues to spread, America’s top doctor has warned.

“There are enough people who don’t fall into [high-risk] categories, that if they don’t get vaccinated, if they don’t get boosted, they’re going to get into trouble,” Dr. Anthony Fauci, the White House’s chief medical adviser, told L.A. radio station KNX’s In Depth show on Tuesday.  

Almost 80% of the U.S. population has been given at least one dose of a COVID vaccine, but only two-thirds of Americans have received their second shot and less than half have had their booster dose, according to data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Fauci said Tuesday that while he understood everyone was “exhausted” with the pandemic, studies and statistics clearly showed that vaccines prevented severe disease, hospitalization, and death.

But probably the most striking quote was this one, which really contradicts this idea that we should return to normalcy:

He added: “You don’t want COVID to dominate the lives of people throughout this country or the world, but you don’t want to, by wishing it’s behind us and it’s in the rearview mirror, not do things that would be prudent. We’re not talking about locking down, we’re just talking about common sense, getting the appropriate interventions when they’re available to you—and right now we have boosters that are very effective in diminishing any aspect of the infection.”

Contrast the above remark from 4-dose, 2-course Fauci with this comment from the CDC:

“We’re in a stronger place today as a nation, with more tools—like vaccination, boosters, and treatments—to protect ourselves, and our communities, from severe illness from COVID-19,” said Greta Massetti, PhD, MPH, MMWR author. “We also have a better understanding of how to protect people from being exposed to the virus, like wearing high-quality masks, testing, and improved ventilation.  This guidance acknowledges that the pandemic is not over, but also helps us move to a point where COVID-19 no longer severely disrupts our daily lives.”

To be fair, Fauci isn’t explicitly saying contradictory remarks, and he somewhat acknowledges that we can’t lock down, although I can’t help but state that I don’t trust much of what comes from Fauci’s mouth. The same goes for the CDC as well.

But I think the most pertinent comment was the one above, suggesting that as much “boosting” has been pushed there haven’t been as many people striving to get boosters as we would have imagined. Remember that there were concerns from the likes of Moderna in regards to having to waste their vaccines because people did not want any more?

From euroweeklynews.com. Once again, click on the headline above for a link.

Add in the fact that there were comments about people being “exhausted”, and something tells me that there’s a feeling in the air that most people are fed up with COVID.

In December I wrote a piece in response to a BMJ article titled, The end of the pandemic will not be televised, in which the authors (including one Peter Doshi) have suggested that much of what we are seeing is a consequence of modernity in which we are constantly inundated by the media while also having the privilege of ordering groceries from home; unlike our elders from years prior:

Another way we might declare the end of a pandemic is by considering the imposition and lifting of public health measures or restrictions. Measures used in previous pandemics have been more fleeting and less intrusive than those that have been used in covid-19. Even for the catastrophic Spanish flu—which killed three times more people per population in the US than covid-19, with an average age of death of 28 years20—lives returned to normal in a short time, perhaps only because there was no other option. In an era before the internet, food delivery apps, and video meetings, widespread and prolonged social distancing was simply not possible, a situation that remains the case today for many workers deemed “essential.” Indeed, a brief look at past pandemics in the US shows there is no fixed or deterministic relation between the pathogenicity of a virus and the intensity and longevity of public health interventions.

I made reference to a scene from a Treehouse of Horror episode from The Simpsons in which mascots came to life and were defeated by a jingle telling people to “just don’t look”.

The media feeds off of the attention that we give it. When we give them our time and focus, we feed stories and reports that weaken our spirits, fill us with fear and anxiety, and leas us into a dangerous codependent relationship that just pushes us further into negative thoughts and delusions.

When we stop paying attention, we stop giving them power.

Right now, there’s plenty of people who are probably just tired of hearing about COVID-on both sides. It doesn’t grab the same attention as it once did in certain circles. It’s ironically fallen out of season, no longer the “current thing”.

There was Ukraine to help with that, and as of recently the raid (or “raid” as some in the media has called it) on Trump’s estate as well as the idea that we aren’t really in a recession (as long as we change the definition of recession).

Maybe that’s why this was the perfect time to release some new guidelines while people are distracted with other goings on. Divert attention to the new “current thing” so that they can keep driving up their ratings. COVID’s out, midterms are in!

Referring back to the BMJ article, read the perspectives from David Robertson and Peter Doshi in regards to how our attention on COVID can drive the pandemic, and how it loses power when we stop feeding into the media’s eye-grabbing headlines:

Some historians have observed that pandemics do not conclude when disease transmission ends “but rather when, in the attention of the general public and in the judgment of certain media and political elites who shape that attention, the disease ceases to be newsworthy.”8 Pandemic dashboards provide endless fuel, ensuring the constant newsworthiness of the covid-19 pandemic, even when the threat is low. In doing so, they might prolong the pandemic by curtailing a sense of closure or a return to pre-pandemic life.

Deactivating or disconnecting ourselves from the dashboards may be the single most powerful action towards ending the pandemic. This is not burying one’s head in the sand. Rather, it is recognising that no single or joint set of dashboard metrics can tell us when the pandemic is over.

These same points could be made in regards to any “current thing”. Its significance is recursive- the media presents things to us in a manner that’s intended to give it meaning, and when we pay attention we validate its meaning and existence, thus furthering its meaning and significance. Life has meaning, and we should be careful in giving life to those things that may wish to take hold of our mental faculties.

---

A few candid remarks

So you may be wondering what this post was initially about. I intended to start this off by just noting that the CDC has changed their guidelines with a bit of pontification as to why it happened.

However, there’s been quite a few things that have been weighing on me these past few months, mostly revolving around Substack and the kind of atmosphere that has been emerging.

I’ve scurried around and looked at comment sections in other people’s posts, and I’ve been rather dismayed at the sort of comments I’ve seen.

People commenting that they don’t know what they are reading (i.e. they don’t understand the science behind some posts) but know that they’re supposed to be scared based on what was presented. I’ve seen other comments from people stating that they need to lay off of Substack for their own sanity because of all of the doomer posts.

These sorts of comments always struck a nerve in me. How can people not understand what they are reading, yet understand they’re supposed to react emotionally to said posts? Shouldn’t comprehension precede reaction?

And if constantly perusing Substack weighs heavily on one’s mental health, then why keep engaging? It’s sort of like an addict drawn to his/her vice even though he/she knows it’s not good for him/her.

There just feels to be an air of negativity all around Substack- or at least around these parts. I can’t help but notice this as the months moved on. Now that Substack has a “Recommendations” feature for its Inbox, I just feel that the negativity and morose energy will just be exacerbated even further. Such a feature are the same techniques utilized by social media to give us things it thinks we want, only most of those things are likely to stoke more unease and anxiety.

Now, I’m aware that these recommendations are based on who I am subscribed to, and in some ways is a reflection of the company that we keep. But that kind of proves the point even further, in that it’s hard to really find any posts indicating something positive or lighthearted around our circles. In the past few weeks I’ve seen posts about people suddenly dying, or allusions that suggest that all of these recent events are due to vaccines. It adds to previous remarks that vaccinated individuals are spewing spike proteins even though the evidence is scarce at best.

All of this has made me rather leery, such that many of these people who may have started off well-intentioned may also be using those same tactics that utilized by the media to grab readers. If they provide exaggerated or possibly unsubstantiated headlines that evoke an emotional response, they are likely to get more viewers, and those viewers may end up turning into paid subscribers.

And I know this for a fact- the metrics don’t lie. My post popular post was one about Molnupiravir and possible carcinogenic effects, although I never argued that Molnupiravir will cause cancer. Instead, I argued that not enough research has been done to substantiate the claim that Molnupiravir is safe and not carcinogenic, but that doesn’t stop people from reading into that and instead saying it will cause cancer even though that wasn’t my initial argument.

Last I checked, that post had over 50,000 views- a stark contrast to the view counts from my other posts. And that’s generally how it goes. My post on the FDA’s guidelines for NAC received a few hundred more views compared to my posts on exercise, even though I’d consider the exercise posts to be rather informative and scientific- things people can use in their own lives and provides some perspective for their own health.

I suppose that’s how the game is played to an extent, but at the same time I’m concerned at how many people are willing to play along rather than view from the sidelines and act on their own accord.

Much of this has led people such as Stephanie Brail to make similar remarks about the fear porn that has appeared on Substack:

The Fear Porn on Both Sides Needs to Stop

Because of this I want to say one thing- make sure that you are control of your own thoughts and mental faculties. Make sure your thoughts are your own and not something you repeat without giving them second thoughts. Be careful of falling into groupthink and following personality figures from any side- there are fear merchants everywhere that may try to prey on you by telling you that “we’re all doomed” or that this is some “final warning” before everything goes to hell.

Make sure that you have some understanding of what you are reading. And if you don’t, reach out to publishers and ask them questions. Use Substack as a place of learning rather than another social media venue to get clapbacks and likes.

Likes are ephemeral; wisdom is perennial.

Be curious, seek out insights, and ask pertinent questions rather than clapback comments that only serve to get likes. Don’t be afraid to provide criticisms if they are rational and provide further discourse. In fact, we should expect more good-faith criticisms, especially from people on “our side”.

And if you all of this feels like too much or you need to stay away for some time, you absolutely should! Listen to your intuition, and if you are tired of being inundated with negativity there’s no reason you can’t take a break. Social media and the internet have become its own plague on modernity. Don’t feel the need to engage if it makes you feel worse in the end.

I’ve written a few posts because of these specific issues, and I encourage people to read those:

Reasons for taking a break from the online world

• Part I: Introduction and the Infodemic Era

• Part II: Living in a (Para)Social World

• Part III: Burning Out and Embracing the Outdoors

Like always, there’s plenty more to say on the matter. I may decide to post an open-thread this weekend asking you all about your thoughts on Substack’s current meta and how you use Substack, just to get some insights on how you as a reader/publisher perceive Substack.

But in the meantime I’d like to hear your thoughts and opinions. And try to remember to take some time this weekend and do things that are meaningful, no matter how little that thing may be.

Not everything has to be about COVID. Not everything has to be about politics. But in this modern age make sure to make a few things about yourself, and take care of yourself before you worry about other things.

---

If you enjoyed this post and other works please consider supporting me through a paid Substack subscription or through my Ko-fi. Any bit helps, and it encourages independent creators and journalists outside the mainstream.

Click on the image above or visit the website: https://ko-fi.com/moderndiscontent

1. As Paul pointed out in the comments section, the word should have been scared not cared! The word has been fixed.