COVID-19 is becoming more like the flu and, as such, no longer requires its own virus-specific health rules, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Friday alongside the release of a unified “respiratory virus guide.”

In a lengthy background document, the agency laid out its rationale for consolidating COVID-19 guidance into general guidance for respiratory viruses—including influenza, RSV, adenoviruses, rhinoviruses, enteroviruses, and others, though specifically not measles. The agency also noted the guidance does not apply to health care settings and outbreak scenarios.

“COVID-19 remains an important public health threat, but it is no longer the emergency that it once was, and its health impacts increasingly resemble those of other respiratory viral illnesses, including influenza and RSV,” the agency wrote.

The most notable change in the new guidance is the previously reported decision to no longer recommend a minimum five-day isolation period for those infected with the pandemic coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2. Instead, the new isolation guidance is based on symptoms, which matches long-standing isolation guidance for other respiratory viruses, including influenza.

  • John_McMurray@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    4 months ago

    Nah 3 years of watching numbers and basic math skills. They didn’t care about accuracy when fear was the game

      • John_McMurray@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Wasn’t really hard when certain government organizations would say shit like there’s been 1.5 million cases, 55,000 deaths and .2 percent mortality in the same fucking press release. Either it was 20 million cases or the .2 was a lie. From what I’ve seen .1, .2 was accurate.

        • boyi@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          again, what your p-value? and based on how many samples? What’s your population?what’s your margin of error?

            • boyi@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              of course their number is the data. How do you analyze the number? what’s you methodology. I need to make sense of your research.

              • John_McMurray@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                You seem to think this is some great debunking, when all you are advocating is believing numbers that don’t add up.