Privileges for vaccinated people now after all + the potential of face masks

Emotionally driven debates continue to dominate the public discourse when matters turn on decisions related to a desired reduction in covid infections and deaths. Repeatedly, attention is drawn to taking the scientific data into account. But what do things look like when scientific data (based on studies, for example) don’t fit the officially promoted narrative? Let’s take a look at some current events in the USA.

Last Friday, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released, among other things, a report on the effectiveness of wearing face masks in the fight against Covid-19.

At least a dozen qualified physicians, academic researchers and, get this, a number of lawyers, were involved in the preparation of this report.

The core theme of this report revolves entirely around the ways in which mandating the wearing of face masks has impacted both infection rates and mortality across the country.

Considering media coverage in general and statements by policymakers in particular over the course of the past several months, one might have concluded that the data recently released by CDC would have included an indication that face mask use would have proven exceedingly useful and effective in combating the spread of SARS-CoV-2.

However, nothing of the sort emerged from the CDC report. Referring to the published study conducted between December 31 and March 1, official orders to wear face masks were in effect in 2,313 of 3,142 counties across the country.

A comparison of the data from each county had the result that orders to wear face masks had been associated with just a 1.32 percent average reduction in infection growth and recorded deaths in the one hundred days that followed.

You read that correctly. The government agency that has been at the forefront of the fight against Covid-19 in the U.S. has announced that the difference between wearing a face mask and not spreading SARS-CoV-2 has averaged just 1.32 percent (compared to not wearing a face mask).

Assuming that the daily published statistics on Covid-19 are not only quite opaque, but also questionable in some aspects, the difference in terms of wearing or not wearing face masks could be even smaller in percentage terms.

What proves interesting is the finding in the CDC’s report that the registration of normal flu cases in the United States dropped to almost zero in the 2020/21 season. In the same period last year, the measured figure was 56 million recorded cases.

Those who, on the basis of these current data, may have come to the conclusion that normal influenza seems to have disappeared all of a sudden and to have been wiped off the map, should put the current developments into perspective.

Given current events, it would probably border on heresy and heresy for anyone to assume that a whole lot of flu cases in the current season seem to have been mistaken for covid cases.

Be that as it may, at the end of the CDC report there is a reference that wearing face masks has THE POTENTIAL to reduce the spread of coronavirus. Since the CDC report only mentions POTENTIAL, this statement clashes with the official guidelines and recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO).

Apparently, the authors of the CDC study were not in a position to make a clearly formulated statement and assessment based on the currently available data with regard to supposed benefits that are supposed to be associated with an official order to wear face masks.

The point is not to demonize the wearing of face masks or to fault people who feel safer wearing a face mask. On the contrary, it is about finally relying on officially available data and facts that need to seep into the public debate in order to break the current vicious cycle of emotion-driven discussions and discourse.

According to the CDC, the measurable benefits of wearing face masks are 1.32 percent compared to not wearing them. Study = data analysis = fact. However, it is also about making quantifiable the disadvantages people face from prescriptions (among others) to wear face masks as well as other health restrictions.

At this point, for example, reference should be made to a recently published study in one of the world’s leading scientific journals, in this case Nature, which concluded that Americans wearing face masks were more likely to engage in risky activities, which according to the official view already includes leaving the house.

The study concludes that mask prescriptions contributed to an increased sense of risk compensation. According to the study, people who wore face masks spent on average up to 24 minutes less in their own homes, while the need to go to commercial locations and stores increased among the subjects.

These include primarily restaurants and what the report calls high-risk locations. In addition, there are a growing number of reports and studies that indicate an alarming rise in serious mental disorders, including a marked increase in suicide rates among young people as a result of health care regulations, including a requirement to wear face masks and lockdowns.

A report published in Nature magazine in early January showed that the suicide rate among children and adolescents in Japan had skyrocketed by 49 percent toward the end of 2020. In October of last year, there were more suicides in Japan than deaths linked to the coronavirus, the report said. At the same time, mental depression and suicides have soared among Japanese women.

In the United States, the government agency responsible for substance abuse and mental health services (SAMHSA) announced last April a huge 890 percent (!) increase in hotline calls received nationally.

The economic consequences of the current developments must also be taken into account. The question is: Do official regulations to wear a face mask help boost the economy by making people feel safer about out-of-home activities – and increasing related spending?

Or, after all, do mask mandates tend to lead to more people staying at home, thereby refraining from activities perceived as stressful, but at the same time reducing economic activity? From today’s perspective, there is still too little research on these fundamental questions.

However, it can be assumed that political decision-makers should be very interested in answers to these urgent questions in order to be able to weigh up the resulting advantages and disadvantages.

This is the only way to assess long-term health consequences and to make decisions on a scientific and rational basis. At the moment, this hardly seems possible due to a highly emotional debate. Whoever raises objections or deviates from the officially announced narrative may count himself among the rapidly growing camp of so-called conspiracy theorists.

All this has little to do with science. Rather, the current events bring back memories of the medieval Inquisition. The demand is to obey. Those who want to rely on the slogan “have faith in science” can claim with a clear conscience after the publication of the CDC report that regulations to wear face masks have “the potential” to reduce the growth rate of covid infections and deaths by 1.32 percent.

Whether traditional media outlets have looked closely at the results of the CDC study is in doubt. This past weekend, several leading papers in the U.S. took up the issue, headlining their headlines as follows:

“After lifting state restrictions, CDC concludes mask prescriptions can reduce deaths” (Washington Post).

“CDC study says wearing face masks helps minimize coronavirus-related infections and deaths” (NY Times)

“Strong evidence that mask prescriptions help minimize spread of coronavirus” (NBC).

In the above media coverage, however, the authors felt little to no encouragement to point out that the underlying data from the U.S. CDC concluded that there was only THE POTENTIAL to a marginal reduction in infection growth rate and deaths, averaging 1.32 percent.

Just as with regard to the data provided by the CDC on the influenza course in the current season, the reporting media apparently assume to be taken seriously by their own readers.

However, it much more likely gives the impression that major media outlets appear to be biased in their reporting to make their view the sole mantra of all things. There is a general lack of objectivity and a transmission of information that is free of emotion. All this certainly has nothing to do with “Follow The Science”.

Now, taking into account the observations of the recent past, the question arises as to how long it may be before Big Tech (Facebook and Twitter) should even decide to cancel scientific study results of the CDC because they simply do not fit into the officially announced narrative?

Almost causing an outcry of outrage in recent days was another CDC report titled Public Health Recommendation for Fully Vaccinated People. In this report, the CDC made recommendations for fully vaccinated fellow citizens.

With reference to the CDC report, fully vaccinated persons are defined as all those who have received either two vaccination doses of the manufacturers Pfizer / Biontech or Moderna in succession. Further, single vaccination with the recently approved Johnson & Johnson vaccine is also included.

Fully vaccinated individuals should continue to adhere to standard precautions in public spaces, according to the CDC. Only when more people will be fully vaccinated would it be possible to refrain from observing standard precautions in public spaces.

However, CDC has also lifted a number of previously applicable precautions from the perspective of fully vaccinated individuals. These include:

Fully vaccinated persons may henceforth meet with other fully vaccinated persons in their own homes without wearing a face mask or observing social distancing.

Home visits by previously unvaccinated persons from a single household who are members of low-risk social groups may be made without wearing a face mask or social distancing.

Fully vaccinated persons no longer need to undergo quarantine or covid testing if confirmed contact with an infected person should have occurred (as long as no symptoms of illness occur thereafter).

Fully vaccinated persons should still limit or refrain from attending medium-sized or large gatherings, although CDC has not provided specific information on the size or number of people at such gatherings.

  • All citizens, whether vaccinated or not, should follow employer recommendations.
  • All fully vaccinated individuals should still undergo Covid testing in case of a subsequent outbreak of Covid symptoms.
  • Health officials, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, continue to believe it is premature and dangerous that states have lifted some of their Covid restrictions completely, including Texas.

The report released by the CDC makes reference to early observations that suggest the likelihood of asymptomatic Covid infections among fully vaccinated individuals is minimal. That is, there is little likelihood of the virus spreading to others.

Grandparents who have refrained from seeing their children and grandchildren for the past several months will be especially pleased with this news. All fully vaccinated persons, who are protected according to current findings, will probably be able to meet again with non-vaccinated persons of a single household in the domestic area from now on.

In an interview with CNBC, journalist Meg Tirrell said at the beginning of the week that the CDC needed to hold a carrot in front of Americans’ noses to encourage more adults to get vaccinated. Not long ago, it had been said that fully vaccinated people would still have to adhere to the same standards and precautions as all non-vaccinated people.

It gives the impression that something is about to change in that view. However, health experts – including Dr. Anthony Fauci – have expressed concern in recent days about the possibility of a “fourth wave” outbreak in the United States.

The onset of a new wave of infections could be caused by so-called mutation strands of the coronavirus, of which two more dangerous variants are said to be bypassing New York and the state of California.

Finally, a video is linked here in which constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead addresses the dangers of Internet censorship, which is particularly far-reaching around the Covid crisis.

According to him, tech censorship is likely to result in everything from censorship of so-called “disinformation” to censorship of truth and real events. As George Orwell once foresaw, speaking the truth will be transfigured into a revolutionary act. A dangerous path, from which, once taken, it would be difficult to depart.

DepthTrade Outlook

I would be interested in your own assessments of the current situation. How do you see things? Will first-generation vaccines pave a way back to normality? Or will the coronavirus crisis – for whatever reasons – drag on even longer than generally hoped?

I would like to thank you in advance for your lively participation in the comment function, which is primarily based on factual points of argumentation.

Christian Zürcher Send an email

From 1990 to 2005, Mr. Zürcher was a risk analyst in the institutional swiss banking sector - thereafter, he specialized exclusively in private trading of financial products. He is a certified real estate agent and studied economics. For more than thirty-five years, Mr. Zürcher has been intensively involved in the observation of financial markets, globalization, and the monetary system. Mr. Zürcher enjoys an excellent reputation as a political analyst and commentator related to finance.
Back to top button