CDC releases new guidance ending 5-day isolation period for recovering COVID-19 patients, stay home if sick
CDC releases new guidance ending 5-day isolation period for recovering COVID-19 patients, stay home if sick
People who are recovering from COVID-19 no longer need to remain isolated for five days after symptoms end, according to new guidance from the CDC.
Here's the thing - has the science changed? Has the virus and long-COVID risks changed?
These stories never tell me that. I don't care what's "normal," I just want to not be exhausted or have brain fog for life.
I know I'm in the minority, everyone wants to move to "endemic" land and treat this as the new flu, but I still really don't want to get COVID and roll the dice on lifelong problems.
The science hasn't changed. If anything we are now more aware of post-viral syndromes to a greater degree, in SARS-CoV-2, AND Influenza, at the very least. I've managed, so far, with diligent masking, hand washing, HEPA filtration, Neti washing, etc to avoid covid, influenza RSV, parapneumovirus, etc. And I hope to continue doing so. One researcher had the phrase, ARDS Roulette, and it's not a game I want to play. Stay strong. Stay healthy.
The virus has changed quite a bit over the last 4 years. It's pretty common for a deadly virus to get less deadly over time. Killing your host isn't very conducive to survival.
But, I haven't seen data on how the risk of long covid has changed over time.
With vaccination the risk of PASC (long covid) decreases. It is a commonly held belief that viruses become less deadly over time, but that is not supported by the science. The truth is far more complex. Approx. 2300 people die from covid each week in the US. I can't quote numbers for other countries. I can highly recommend TWIV (This Week in Virology, https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/), and related podcasts (https://www.microbe.tv/science-shows-by-scientists/), if you want to keep up to speed on the current science in infectious disease.
A virus doesn't care if the host lives or dies. Just like evolution doesn't care if YOU live or die, so long as it happens after you have kids.
A virus only has to have a living host long enough to spread to others, and the long asymptomatic infectious period observed with this coronavirus already fits that bill.
Think of Rabies, nearly 100% fatal, still incredibly widespread and infectious.
killing your host isn't very conducive to survival.
Ebola has entered the chat....
Disclaimer: i'm not a doctor or an epidemiologist....
It doesn’t really matter if the science has changed, public health isn’t (correctly) based exclusively on the science. It’s about risk mitigation, following the best advice regarding morbidity from virologists means nothing if the population you’re attempting to protect won’t follow the guidance. Public health policy is about the possible and finding the most effective part of the curve plotted between pure science and social behavior.
That's a very reasonable and rational response, thank you. I do wish, however, that for people like me who absolutely do want to take the optimal approach and don't care very much about getting back to "normal" if it means materially increasing the risk of COVID, that they would tell me what that best path is. Maybe modeling for multiple types of social behavior is too labor-intensive for them, I don't know.
I'm waiting for the CDC guideline on avoiding licking urinals whenever possible, but not when necessary.
We need to meet people where they are, not where the science says they should be.
Edit: I really didn't think this needed the /s tag, guys.