If the decision to cut isolation for asymptomatic people is backed by an increasing number of relevant scientists and epidemiologists, then why wouldn’t we do it?
Or are we back to getting our medical advice from Facebook?
ummm, what? Litterally never taken advice or taken anything ive reads on facebook as relevant to this or any other matter. While you've been away, here in Australia we've recently stopped applying the medical advice in full and are largely picking and choosing the bits that our political leaders feel best reflect a "balanced" approach. They get the advice, then don't listen to it. This couldn't be any clearer than from the from largley opposing positions Kerry Chant and Dominic Perrotet hold.
We also have the WHO (also not facebook news) who are warning about the overburdening of the hospital systems even with amilder disease. NSW doubled its hospitalisations from last week, but thats ok because "its not bad yet". Its like the threshold for doing anything is waiting untill it is actually bad. I remember something else along these lines, oh yeah, the vaccination stroll out.
As to why wouldn't we do it? because common sense to me says that if people are testing positive for a highly virulent disease, but they're asymptomatic, why would you risk allowing them to be out and further spreading? How many people will actually wear the mask or how will it even be policed? Many are going to treat it as if they dont have it. Sure the CDC are a reliable source for this sort of information, and we'll have to consider that in our national approach, but i suspect a lot of the advice we've chosen to implement is dependent on other precautions being in place som of our politicians (not chief medical officers) have felt is "not relevant for our demographic becaue of X". Its this approach of that gives me the biggest concern.
The fact that there isn't a grand unified global approach means that some of what were all doing is guess work based on what we do know, which is ever evolving.
reminds me of this