Reactionary, but not surprising. They did what was thought best using the science available at the time. Hindsight and further knowledge of COVID gained since then give us a different perspective on what was and wasn’t necessary.
I wish I could like this post multiple times. There's a difference between science and bureaucracy.
Science is two things, a process, and a body of knowledge:
- the process involves making observations, deriving an hypothesis, designing an experiment to test that hypothesis. If the hypothesis is proven, it becomes part of what is our best understanding of the world
- science as a body of knowledge is the collection of theories that make up our understanding of our the world works. This is what we look to for explanations and use to make projections.
The scientific process is pretty static and doesn't change often. However, the body of knowledge is constantly evolving. And that's a good thing. That means that a better understanding has come to light. Sometimes, that means that the prior "best theory" was wrong or incomplete. The body of knowledge is not perfect by any means. But that's the best we have at any given point in time.
The fervor with which people on this board criticize the evolving nature of our understanding of COVID, prevention measures, vaccine safety and efficacy, etc. is mind boggling. This was a shitshow of a situation with very limited data. And people were gloating and making fun of "science" being "wrong". That shows an utter lack of understanding of how science works. Scientific knowledge is dynamic by nature, it changes as we learn more, that's the point. It's not a bug, it's a feature!
The CDC had to make life or death public safety recommendations based on evolving data and understanding. None of the know-it-all on this board would have a great track record if they were put in this situation. Does this mean the CDC were perfect, nope, not at all. They have an opportunity to be much clearer, relay risks in a more transparent manner, etc. But none of that has to do with "follow the science", IMHO.