Almost Canadian

I read it but it appears that the point I am trying to make is either flying way above your head, or you are not willing to answer. Either way, I suggest we leave it there.

Shard

I'm always willing to answer. Whatever point you're trying to make is very difficult to discern. My impression is that your thinking on this is rather muddled, and I am attempting to understand it and see where the confusion lies.

Danny B

No pun intended, but this is pretty heartless.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60132765

Shard

Makes perfect sense to me. Nice pun too.

Almost Canadian

OK. Here goes

I'll repeat : Are you able to provide any logical reason why jurisdictions should treat those with vaccinations and those unvaxxed, but infected, differently?

I have highlighted the important bit. I understand your argument regarding vaxxed v unvaxxed. I am asking to confirm why the vaxxed, and the unvaxxed but infected, should be treated differently.

Shard

Can you further define who constitutes "the unvaxxed but infected" ? Someone who is currently/newly infected or someone who has been infected in the past, has recovered and now has antibodies. (I suspect the latter, but just want to make sure we are on the same page.)

Almost Canadian

Infected and recovered.

Shard

So the question is why treat this unvaxxed group differently from the vaccinated group ?

First, because this group is a subset the the unvaxxed population as whole. A lucky subset (recovered, and with some level of immunnity). By treating their immunity as equiavelent to vaccine immunity it sends a signal to the entire unvaxxed population (infected and not infected) that there is an alternative means to deal with the virus. We know on a population level that this simply is not the case. Some of the not infected will take false comfort in their ability to survive the virus and not be so lucky.

Second, because in practice it is harder to maintain and confirm natural immunity than vaccinated immunity. The antibodies that are produced under both scenaros weaken over time. Someone on the vaccination track gets a booster, what does an unvaxxed person do, re-infect themselves with a dangerous virus ? Is the testing to prove the unvaxxed immunity reliable?

In short, the vaccinated population have higher and more reliable immunity than the unvaccinated population. A pandemic is a population level health concern, it is transmissable, and in the case of a virus, adaptable. Solutions need to be applied at the population level (hence considering the entire unvaxxed group rather than the unvaxxed infected recovered subset).

Mordko

Then why not provide the primary source?

However, if this is a competition in linking charlatans and people whose brains have been destroyed by drug abuse, here is another contribution: https://nationalpost.com/news/world/...box=1643206847

Shard

Oh dear.

At least Neil Young is on the right page

Almost Canadian

The scientific data supports such an assertion. Why do you find it so difficult to admit that?

This could easily be dealt with by the unvaxxed/infected/recovered having to provide whatever documentation the jurisdictions require, just as the vaccinated have to.

I find this bizarre. The unvaxxed/infected/recovered are, essentially, the same as the vaxxed. If it is possible to treat the vaxxed and unvaxxed differently, why should there be any reason not to treat the unvaxxed and unvaxxed/infected/recovered differently?

In any event, this is becoming a moot point as I note that restrictions in England are being lifted and I do not foresee that it will be too long before other jurisdictions follow suit.

Shard

I do not find it difficult to admit the assertion, I have referred to it in my response. The key word to focus on the part your highlighed is "treating". It refers to the approach of the authorities not the underlying equivalency. By not understanding this word, you miss the point.

Indeed, proof of "Covid recovered" (a PCR test evidencing antibodies) could be presented in lieu of vaccination. I did not say it couldn't. You asked for logical reasons regarding different treatment, and I suggested that such a tests based approach would be "harder". At what schedule would tests be taken? If someone was asymptomatic and therefore did not take a test (despite being infected) this would be impact the integrity of the system. Do you not agree that a test based system is inferior to a vaccination system. Proof of vaccination is straightforward; proof of immunity through testing is not.

Nothing bizarre here. I've explained at length why the unvaxxed pose a threat, and why it's preferable to differentiate. I think you are focussed on one very narrow aspect of the recovered unvaxxed, and disregard the wider implications of accepting that aspect as equivalent to population vaccination.

BristolUK

Some wise person said this back on January 1st (and many times previously)
Lifting England Covid rules while 3bn people unvaccinated reckless – experts
Better late than never I suppose.

printer

I think we have touched on this approach about vaccines before whereby UK is full steam ahead on boosters when many countries cannot even get a decent percentage with a first dose. I guess the big issue is timing because how do we ensure those countries get the right number of vaccines and they get administered in a decent timeframe. If it's not done speedily how much longer do other countries wait before they relax restrictions and reboot their economies? Would the UK have been in another Xmas lock down were it not for their booster campaign because i would guess the majority of Brits would have been pretty fed up with that idea. I don't get the feeling that the average man/woman on the street cares much about the under vaccinated poorer countries but rather whether their local will be open for a pint or two and stuffing their faces with turkey. Here we are in Canada vaccinating 5 years upwards, the UK by contrast is not vaccinating under 12's and England is not recommending face masks in schools although some schools have hit back at this so what data are we following here? We have heard these so called "expert" groups before coming up with ludicrous possible death numbers if things aren't locked down and yet most most of them have been vastly over exaggerated. Currently their case numbers are continuing to fall so watch this space as they say. Of course so are ours almost everywhere except in your neck of the woods which seems odd as you had previously mentioned

BristolUK

Did you miss a couple of words at the end?

Aren't case numbers falling because A) fewer people are being tested and B) those that are tested are relied upon to report the positive tests and are not doing so?

The UK daily Death total remains high. We're just coming to the end of a two week circuit breaker. The only numbers that can be compared with any accuracy (because of the testing/reporting issue) are the hospital and death numbers.

What was it, 2 or 3 weeks ago I posted that NB had seen 18 deaths in 6 days and that had doubled the number we saw throughout 2020? An average of 3 per day.
Since then, daily new deaths continue to be between 3 and 6. That's not going down.

I know we're the province with most older people (%) and possibly most unhealthy too. It seems reasonable to assume that's why the death rate (pop) here is so high - still third in Canada I'm hearing. But if this was not happening in 2020 and a large chunk of 2021 but now it is I can't see any other conclusion than Omicron spreads so fast that it infects so many people that even a low % of people so adversely affected is a high number of people.