Carl Bergstrom, a professor at the University of Washington whose work on COVID-19 has been widely cited in the media from nearly Day One of the pandemic, is challenging the new CDC guidelines that “reduced the isolation period after a positive test from 10 days to 5 days for asymptomatic individuals.”
“I like the idea of allowing people to exit isolation earlier than after ten days, but doing so without one or more negative tests seems odd,” he said:
The CDC has reduced the isolation period after a positive test from 10 days to 5 days for asymptomatic individuals.
I like the idea of allowing people to exit isolation earlier than after ten days, but doing so without one or more negative tests seems odd.
— Carl T. Bergstrom (@CT_Bergstrom) December 28, 2021
Whispers: There are no tests because the Biden administration did not prioritize tests:
President Joe Biden and his team repeatedly promised more Covid-19 testing, including at-home kits that deliver rapid results, but they are now admitting a virus that is more adaptable than the politicians who fight it has outpaced them again https://t.co/DBLwp72N0u
— CNN (@CNN) December 28, 2021
Bergstrom then argued that the reason testing is so important is that there is a “broad range of infectious periods, with a non-trivial fraction going well beyond five days”:
In general, at least for the OG strain, evidence suggested a broad range of infectious periods, with a non-trivial fraction going well beyond five days. Below, how we parameterized infectious period for our modeling efforts. pic.twitter.com/wG2nvilHq2
— Carl T. Bergstrom (@CT_Bergstrom) December 28, 2021
Even the scientists don’t believe the CDC when they say it was based on science?
The CDC reports that this change is driven by science suggesting the majority of transmission occurs in the first 5 days of infection.
If by "majority" they mean greater than 50%, I agree with the claim.
But….https://t.co/wb35mObeJT pic.twitter.com/DSaJ2wURsE
— Carl T. Bergstrom (@CT_Bergstrom) December 28, 2021
Show your work, CDC!
But, more than 50% isn't a good bar for ending isolation. I'd want to isolate until the vast majority of transmission potential had passed. I'd like to see the science that the CDC is basing this decision on, and to better understand the cost-benefit calculation they are doing.
— Carl T. Bergstrom (@CT_Bergstrom) December 28, 2021
Bergstrom also pointed out that the language from the CDC is confusing. Here the CDC says “if asymptomatic”:
Because there is some confusion about whether this guidance applies to asymptomatic individuals or everyone, here is the press release I am drawing from.https://t.co/wb35mObeJT pic.twitter.com/Bkuiaax28J
— Carl T. Bergstrom (@CT_Bergstrom) December 28, 2021
But, later on, the CDC talks about symptoms “that are resolving” which isn’t the same thing:
The press release has that self-contradictory written-by-committee feel; later in the same document the rules change and we told that people can also leave isolation at five days if they symptoms "that are resolving".
"That are resolving"—that sure needs a proper definition. pic.twitter.com/2SYABURiyj
— Carl T. Bergstrom (@CT_Bergstrom) December 28, 2021
He ended the thread with this criticism of Dr. Fauci in that video we just told you about:
Meanwhile here's Fauci with pretty much the definition of penny-wise and pound-foolish, saying we need to send people back after 5 days because we can't afford to have people off of work . h/t @NeilLewisJr https://t.co/3AoYwHgJXS
— Carl T. Bergstrom (@CT_Bergstrom) December 28, 2021
And if it’s not clear yet, he’s mocking the CDC:
https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/1475807701686882309
https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/1475713334485794816
https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/1475707838391472131
Maybe it’s because we’re still in the Christmas hangover phase of the news cycle, but the CDC change is not going the way Team Biden hoped it would go:
whew waited all day since I saw these headlines for health pros to weigh in so that I could find out if the CDC’s announcement is scientifically sound or corrupted by some stripe of “keep them earning/spending” i.e. tolerable-deaths mindset https://t.co/tJuSFJJS7H
— JessicaMae Stover ✘ Author of Astral Fall (scifi) (@JSto) December 28, 2021
To be continued. . .
***
Join the conversation as a VIP Member