That's an extremely low opinion of the CDC, isn't it? When they first issued guidelines, I remember thinking they were erring on the side of caution but followed them because they are the agency tasked with handling the pandemic. Now people are implying the agency has "forgotten" there are immunocompromised people and children under 12 (unlikely), and accusing them of dodging questions and giving people deliberately misleading or dangerously incomplete answers.
What changed? Do you think the CDC was initially a responsible agency that was somehow broken by its inability to deal with a global pandemic? Or is it possible that the data they are looking at supports its current guidance (which can change with changing circumstances) that vaccinated people are protected and don't need to wear masks regardless of coming into contact with unvaccinated people who may not be wearing masks? After all, the purpose of the vaccines is protect one against coming into contact with the virus. So far, I've committed to following the CDC guidance regardless of my personal feelings, but if what happens if we are no longer able to trust them - is it every individual deciding for themselves?
Vaccinated safety when exposed to the virus is a numbers game not a forcefield.
The vaccines work best when there's relatively little exposure. The breakthrough or failing of the vaccine happens when it's overwhelmed.
So, if I take a vaccinated person and expose them to a single person who's infected with the original strain. It's likely the exposure will be low enough to not overwhelm their immune system faster than it can fight back. Grandma visiting one unvaccinated family.
Do that again, but replace that with a person infected with Delta. That's where the developing reporting seems to be. If it really does involve 1,000 times more virus load, it's possible that's enough to infect someone before they can fight it off. We'll see more breakthroughs/lower vaccine protection. I don't think we have enough reporting on this yet.
Do this a third time, but instead of one person, surround the vaccinated person with 100 or 1,000 contagious people. Or, 10 contagious people but for a long time with poor ventilation. Conditions where the vaccinated person is exposed to large quantities of virus.
The CDC guidelines when taken as a whole are designed to prevent vaccinated people from being exposed to large quantities of virus. I trust the guideline and the science behind it. I also trust that the vaccine gives the immune system a huge head start to catch up and fend off the virus, which explains the reduced impact even when infected for vaccinated people.
I think the CDC was reading this very thread, twitter, or the pundits that were all saying vaccination rate would increase if getting vaccinated meant you didn't need to continue with all the same mitigations. Vaccination rate charts seem to indicate a bump when they did it too (which surprised me).
It's a policy question then, not a medical one one how to implement the guidance. Maybe it's not the CDC we should ask, but governors and other legislators about why we're ignoring the CDC guidance with use of the honor system.
In areas of low transmission with high vaccination rates, it doesn't bother me so much that there are cheaters ignoring the guidance and being unmasked and unvaccinated. Simply because there are not many of them. We take my unvaccinated kid to sport stadiums, they mask in the congested areas.
In areas of high transmission with low vaccination rates, as a vaccinated individual I would try to avoid these areas or take extra precautions. I would avoid bringing my kid who isn't vaccinated to any of these areas. For them as unvaccinated, they're not much different than months ago for risk.
