David Weiss, MD

⚠️BEYOND ANGRY—Lots of confusion on CDC’s new isolation guidelines— why? Because The CDC MADE THEM CONFUSING & VAGUE ON PURPOSE. Proponents claim it still has “some isolation” & still “some precautions”. But if you read actual guidelines (which are clear as mud)—see if you think they are vague/confusing… 1) stay home if symptoms “not better explained by another cause” ➡️ummm WHAT THE HELL??? Do people need to both likely ask doctor to exclude all other causes, or SELF-DIAGNOSE and play SELF-EPIDEMIOLOGY to attribute symptom causation to be <50% other cause? How do people even do that? Give me a frigging break. 2) If no fever, “Symptoms getting better overall”—➡️how do you define BETTER and OVERALL? 💡What if sneezing less frequent but runny nose still bad? 💡What if coughing less, less headache, but sneezing more? HOW THE HELL DO PEOPLE WEIGHT THESE DIFFERENT SYMPTOMS?!?! (Also keep in mind 50% of all COVID transmission is asymptomatic…. So this one is disingenuous to begin with). What the heck @CDCgov — you know this is outright dereliction of duty to put out trash guidelines like this! 3) After you go back to school/work/social settings—➡️for next 5 days (which does NOT guarantee you’re not infectious anymore at all to begin with)… “take precautions such as …. [LIST]… and/***or*** [LIST]”… the 🔥key detail I want to highlight is the super vague “or” near the end of that sentence! Why? Well, the explicit meaning therefore is simple “CHOOSE ONE OF THE ABOVE [LIST] OF PRECAUTIONS”. Thus, the @CDCDirector is basically telling you that you can do almost nothing and casually do one like “Simply TEST” and you can be around others—the CDC doesn’t even say “Only if you test negative”—just simply “test”! This is honestly one of the WORST guidelines the @CDCgov has ever written. It is purposefully vague and allows a myriad of loopholes and subjective interpretations— exactly the kind of stuff corporate executives and politicians love — they can say they are complying with the CDC while doing virtually nothing much at all to protect people and public health! This on on too of the already horrible shoddy data/analysis that the guideline is supposedly based on (see earlier 🧵), and based on data from likely illegally enacted CA guidelines (see other legal complaint 🧵)…. ➡️This is honestly one of the worst despicable disingenuous corrupt guidelines that the @CDCgov @CDCFlu has ever done and @CDCDirector has ever rubber stamped. The CDC used to be a shining beacon on a hill—it is now inept and/or complicit and has betrayed its mission to disease *control and prevention* that is in its very name. (Share if you agree. Or explain in comments if you disagree.) P.s. to my friends inside the CDC network—know that I respect you very much for your tireless work and efforts.🙏 The arc of the moral universe is long—but it does bend to justice. Keep doing quality science, keep internally fighting the good fight for public health, and know that your efforts to voice your opposition to CDC leaders will not in vain. The inept political leaders do not represent for all of you, and do not take away from your best efforts to protect public health. Don’t be afraid to stand up for reason, stand for good unpolluted science, and stand on the right side of history. In a world of public health—Don’t be a Mandy Cohen, be a Rosa Parks. Stay strong.✊🏼 cdc.gov/media/releases/2024/… cdc.gov/respiratory-viruses/…