Devil's advocate: people who say "trust the science/scientists" should do so even when they themselves disagree.
I don't know your position, but I have seen similar responses to yours from people who I know have taken the position of "trust the scientists." Don't you think that the smart folks at the CDC have gone through a similar thought process as you and are issuing these guidelines regardless? Why would we not trust their judgement now?
I consider myself very "science minded", which is why I absolutely hate the phrase "trust the scientists." Primarily because science is all about having a healthy skepticism, and if anything it's about trusting the scientific process (even then, "trust" is a not a great word here - we "trust" the scientific process because history shows it works).
The CDC has made plenty of mistakes and mishaps during this pandemic, so "trusting" them would be foolhardy in my opinion. That said, the CDC has many brilliant people working for them, and unlike many of their critics in my opinion they are always acting in good faith.
But they still exist in the area of public health policy, which is about much more than just "science". Zeynep Tufekci, a sociologist, has had some of the best articles and analysis throughout the pandemic. She advocated public mask wearing when the CDC was telling people it wasn't necessary, and she just recently said the CDC's mask guidelines were too timid [1].
The message shouldn't be "trust the scientists". The science here is actually not that complicated that most people can't grasp it. The message should be to dig in to the science that is presented so you can make up your own mind.
When a lot of people and organizations say "trust the scientists", it seems what they actually mean/do is "trust the scientists when they say we need tighter restrictions, but ignore the scientists when they say we can loosen restrictions".
A handful of people on the internet do not make the vast majority of people or organizations. Look at the messaging coming from the President today, in line with the CDC. WA state is set to be fully open by June 30th at the latest based on current trends combined with the CDC guidance.
I meant people in positions of power who make rules that other people have to follow, more so than random people on the Internet just giving their opinions. For example, I predict it will take a lot longer for mask mandates to go away than it did for them to appear when the CDC first said so.
"I want to be clear about what the CDC is saying – and what the CDC isn’t saying. The CDC is saying they have concluded that fully vaccinated people are at very low risk for getting COVID-19. Therefore, if you’re fully vaccinated, you no longer need to wear a mask."
The lack of specifics also gives us a lot of information. It says "do your best to enforce, but it is not critical if everyone doesn't adhere 100%." If it was critical, they wouldn't have issued these guidelines, or the guidelines would have come with other specifics like you mention with passports.
"The science" is not this monolith that stands on its own. The science behind this is the belief that fully vaccinated people are not significant spreaders of the disease. That is correct, and it's good for the CDC to recognize that. But it doesn't tell us anything about how easy it is to determine who is and isn't vaccinated and how to ensure compliance in the absence of a "vaccine passport."
The CDC is not recommending that all establishments allow people without masks though, it is only saying that if everyone is vaccinated then it is safe. If there is no way to guarantee that all are vaccinated, then this does not translate into a recommendation to drop a mask requirement.
Consider a parallel. the CDC might say if an HIV+ person is taking some treatment, it is safe to have sexual relations with them. But if you do not trust the person you are with, your own personal policy would probably not be to have unprotected sex.
I read their release carefully. They didn't say that. They said that an individual if vaccinated does not need to mask. They said nothing about everyone in a space needing to be vaccinated in order for anyone to not mask.
>it is only saying that if everyone is vaccinated then it is safe.
Right, but like the previous poster said, we have no way of verifying. Maybe people do, but I don't think everyone carries their vaccination card with them, so how are establishments going to verify? They'll probably ask, and accept the answer. And as people are starting to point out, the unvaccinated will just lie. My point is that the CDC must have played this same thought experiment, but they are issuing these guidelines regardless.
Instead of businesses having to verify, it would make more sense for the county or municipality to establish a policy based upon the prevailing positivity rate. If there's a low level of infection in the community, indoor masks are at the wearer's discretion, if there's a high level, indoor masks are mandatory. This would also establish a causal link between a getting vaccinated and helping to keep the community open.
Your suggestion is contrary to the CDC's guidance. It doesn't say that it's only safe for vaccinated people to stop wearing masks if the prevailing positivity rate is low.
The CDC guidelines are for individuals. As fully vaccinated individuals, you and I are safe to not wear a mask outdoors and indoors. But safe to go maskless indoors is not the same thing as free to go maskless indoors. That is up to the prevailing jurisdictional policy. As the CDC itself states, "[F]ully vaccinated people can resume activities without wearing a mask or physically distancing, except where required by federal, state, local, tribal, or territorial laws, rules, and regulations, including local business and workplace guidance."
So the problem still exists of what communities will do, if anything, to protect their citizens, both those who are vaccinated and those who are not? One response to that is to just let people do what they want and let the chips fall as they may. Another response is for communities to be proactive iff there is a local outbreak, with the aim of preventing it from getting even worse. The option of leaving it up to businesses to individually decide to protect their customers or not seems untenable. A business will be just be asking for trouble to take it upon itself to verify which customers have been vaccinated or not.
I don't know your position, but I have seen similar responses to yours from people who I know have taken the position of "trust the scientists." Don't you think that the smart folks at the CDC have gone through a similar thought process as you and are issuing these guidelines regardless? Why would we not trust their judgement now?