Have you read your own article?

Yes, it says "On Monday, the CDC released a study finding mRNA vaccines __90% effective at preventing infection__."

I remember last year when this news hit, that bit about 90% effective *against infection* was amplified and played nonstop for the public. The message was clearly get vaccinated and you will not get sick.

It was not until July and the CDC MMWR report on the Providence, Rhode Island, bear week festivities that lead to unexpected breakthrough infections that the CDC admitted the vaccines were not 90% effective against infection anymore. Unfortunately this updated message has never been clearly told to the public, at least not as clearly or loudly as the original 90% protection against infection message.

From the Business Insider article you posted:

> Walensky was referring to a new CDC study of nearly 4,000 front-line workers, some vaccinated and some not, who tested themselves weekly for COVID-19 infections between December and March.

> But more data is still necessary to say so definitively, which is why researchers are recruiting thousands of college students across the country to find out more about the likelihood of asymptomatic spread of this virus among vaccinated people.

The article is explicit that the CDC was talking about the findings in a new study, and that more research still needed to be conducted before being sure of their findings.

> It was not until July and the CDC MMWR report on the Providence, Rhode Island, bear week festivities that lead to unexpected breakthrough infections that the CDC admitted the vaccines were not 90% effective against infection anymore.

Because of the new delta variant that those very same festivity goers helped the CDC with[1], and that changed the CDC's guidelines:

> The speed of the investigation — and the exceptional participation from the mostly gay men involved in the outbreak — helped the CDC learn new information about the delta variant. And it was that new information, in part, that prompted the agency to change its guidance for how vaccinated people should keep themselves safe at this stage of the pandemic — including a return to masking indoors.

[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/08/06/1025553...

Unfortunately, that would destroy the narrative that the CDC is infallible and everyone should unquestioningly follow their advice, always.

Btw, I’ve had both shots, had COVID and will get the booster.

Noone has ever thought the CDC was infallible; we traditionally ignore everything public health officials tell us to do, since it's mainly things like "never eat medium-rare hamburgers".

That is unfortunate that we switched to directly getting mask policies etc. from them, because it's not their job to consider tradeoffs and they aren't good at it.

I've never heard that narrative, except from people into anti-establishment attacks who are criticizing the narrative. It's a strawperson, IME.

is strawman so non inclusive and offensive in the US?

Come to think of it, I'm not sure I've ever seen a strawwoman. Maybe as part of a straw couple as decoration at a harvest market or something

Well ok they'll get sick. People get sick. They'll get way less sick, so that's good!

> that vaccinated/boosted people can and will get sick or even spread disease to others Are you under the impression this isn't what they've been telling people?

The article I posted has a quote and video of the director of the CDC explicitly saying in March of last year that vaccinated people "do not carry the virus" and were 90% protected __against infection__.

That's a direct quote from the head of the CDC, it does not get more official or more of a primary source than that IMHO.

It actually does get more official than a director's spoken words, but moot point. You are writing as if in the year since that largely pre-Delta point in time that the CDC's official guidance was that you won't carry the virus and are protected from infection — and it was never updated.