You can not say that new variants "WILL" be more resistant to the current vaccines. That is a complete unknown. Delta might not even really be more resistant to the vaccines. Possibly the higher viral load makes the immune system unable to get rid of it before it reaches a detectable level but it still gets rid of it before it makes you sick.
Something resistant to a vaccine or medication means it becomes difficult to get rid of.
We can completely say that if a new variant is more resistant to current vaccines so that it is able to replicate and infect others after a vaccinated person that this competitive advantage will likely lead to it becoming the dominant variant and supplanting all the prior ones. We can also say, this would be bad.
You're right we cannot say it will definitely happen. We could vaccinate everyone fast enough to reduce overall spread before this virus advantageous mutation happens. Alternatively, we could cultivate and encourage as many virus and vaccinated encounters as possible. Maximize the number of mutations that are tried against the vaccine. Thereby encouraging natural selection of exactly the virus mutation with the competitive advantage.
I mean, that's not a great plan, but we could totally do it.
Do the work to discourage bad, or wait until bad get's here, maybe even help it arrive, then react when it's already bad. It shouldn't' be a hard choice.
No, it's bizarre because it makes the CDC look like a bunch of bumbling idiots who don't know what they are talking about. As I said in the mask thread, either the guidance in May or the guidance yesterday was wrong. They can't possibly both be correct guidance. They knew about the Delta variant and it was spiking in India several weeks before the change to the guidance in May so you can't blow it off as "that's how science works."
Either they shouldn't have changed the guidance in May because the "science" didn't support it or the "science" was correct back then and the "science" doesn't support the revision released yesterday.
Between May and July, the community spread changed.
In May, many said the guidance change was too aggressive. The pushback was that it was fine based on the science and it wasn't the guidance change that people were commenting on, it was really the policy changes that came with the change. The unvaccinated guidance hasn't changed in months.
Now, in June, there's much more spread going on.
Many will say the new guidance change is too conservative. If they had said, change this everywhere, I would agree that sounds too conservative, based on the "maybe you can spread delta". Which, at least if you're going to be conservative, doing it on the side of before you know you're in trouble is the right side. But, they didn't go that far. The little change they made was, if you're in a bad area, better to be safe until we know for sure. If you're in a better area, it's probably fine waiting until we know for sure.
Just like before, the real pushback is going to be on the policy changes that come with this, or don't come with this.
The original message, before we layer on the policy implementation of that message feels relatively consistent. The vaccines work great. They're not perfect, but super good. They work best (as all vaccines do) when spread is relatively low and they keep it that way then.
It's all the raincoat and umbrella analogies going on and the weather changed from a light rain to a storm and is headed towards a hurricane. Of course that impacts how to react.