A Wall Street Journal op-ed argued that fully vaccinated people should be able to get back to normal life despite new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines that urge a much more cautious approach.
“The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has lost a lot of credibility during the Covid-19 pandemic by being late or wrong on testing, masks, vaccine allocation and school reopening,” said the op-ed’s author, Dr. Marty Makary, a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. “Staying consistent with that pattern, this week — three months after the vaccine rollout began — the CDC finally started telling vaccinated people that they can have normal interactions with other vaccinated people — but only in highly limited circumstances. Given the impressive effectiveness of the vaccine, that should have been immediately obvious by applying scientific inference and common sense.”
Makary blasted the CDC for claiming to “follow the science,” but giving advice that is seemingly “paralyzed by fear.”
“Parts of the new guidelines are absurdly restrictive,” Makary said. “For example, the CDC didn’t withdraw its advice to avoid air travel after vaccination. A year of prevaccine experience has demonstrated that airplanes aren’t a source of spread. A study conducted for the defense department found that commercial planes have HEPA filtration and airflow that exceed the standards of a hospital operating room.”
While Makary acknowledges the CDC guidance does allow vaccinated people to have small gatherings with low-risk unvaccinated people, he argues that the efficacy of the vaccines should allow for much more than that.
“An unpublished study conducted by the Israeli Health Ministry and Pfizer showed that vaccination reduced transmission by 89% to 94% and almost totally prevented hospitalization and death, according to press reports,” Makary said. “Immunity kicks in fully about four weeks after the first vaccine dose, and then you are essentially bulletproof.”
Makary also took aim at the CDC’s rationale for keeping more restrictive guidance in place, with the agency noting that the risk of infection in vaccinated people “cannot be completely eliminated.”
“The CDC highlights the vaccines’ stunning success but is ridiculously cautious about its implications,” Makary said. “Public-health officials focus myopically on transmission risk while all but ignoring the broader health crisis stemming from isolation. The CDC acknowledges 'potential' risks of isolation, but doesn’t go into details.”
The doctor argued that it is time to “liberate vaccinated people to restore their relationships and rebuild their lives,” something he says would “encourage vaccination by giving hesitant people a vivid incentive to have the shots.”
“We cannot exaggerate the public-health threat, as we did with hospital visitation rules, and keep crushing the human spirit with overly restrictive policies for vaccinated Americans,” Makary said.
Makary argued that the “loneliness” resulting from lockdowns has become a “public-health crisis” in itself, noting that studies trying to measure the mental health effects of the pandemic will take years to assess the full damage.
“Some experts selectively appeal to common sense when it comes to using discretion. Anthony Fauci said it was ‘common sense’ to wear two masks at once,” Makary concluded. “I too will invoke ‘common sense’ to answer the big question so many are asking: What am I allowed to do after I’ve been vaccinated? Once a month has passed after your first shot, go back to normal.”
Makary’s advice echoes that of Sen. Rand Paul, who responded to the updated CDC guidance by saying that people who are fully vaccinated should “live free” and “trash your mask.”
“Rather than listening to government scolds, look to the science of immunology: and once you’re 2 weeks out from the vaccine, or have recovered from the actual infection, trash your mask and live free again,” Paul said on Twitter.
Makary was also at the center of controversy last week after one of his Wall Street Journal op-eds was the subject of a Facebook fact-check, with the social media giant reducing distribution of the editorial over concerns that it was misleading the public.
The Wall Street Journal editorial board responded with a scathing rebuke of Facebook, signaling an openness to a revision of Section 230 to combat against what it called “phony fact-checks.”
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
“We’ve been leery of proposals in Congress to modify Section 230 protections that shield internet platforms from liability,” the editors wrote. “But social-media giants are increasingly adding phony fact checks and removing articles flagged by left-leaning users without explanation. In short, they are acting like publishers in vetting and stigmatizing the content of reputable publishers. The legal privileges that enable these companies to dominate public discourse need to be debated and perhaps revised.”
