We don’t know though. I haven’t seen a single report of a cluster from parents gathering outside schools.
But have New York not closed their schools several times in that period and had blended learning throughout?
I’ve no idea. The US definition of “schools” (which includes universities) makes all their data hard to interpret. So it’s good to see US data which references specific ages.
I think they have. From a quick Google I seen this:
Well there you go.
Presumably. Doesn’t really tell us a whole lot about what to expect from schools returning at full capacity though. Split learning always seemed like the best compromise to me.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I have misgivings. Unless they'll offer exemption certificates for those who can't have it, it would be patently unfair to some people.
Horrible idea. Bad enough for travelling never mind domestic
It's going to happen, however, even though there's no precedent. Yellow Fever vaccination is required to visit a small number of places, but that's a vaccine where there's only one version and it protects you for life. It's also to protect the individual traveller rather than to protect other people.
With stuff like this what happens if you've not had the vaccine yet? I.e you've just not had your call to get it rather than refuse it? Apologises it been answered already bit can never find the answer to it. Seems pretty unfair to be excluded through no fault of your own.
My main issue is any form of implementation before widespread availability of vaccines. For International travel then it would only be "fair" when the vaccine was widely available in all countries which will take quite a while. Not that fairness will keep it from actually being implemented, but I for sure am against it.
Quiet Plague bearer. Us Vaxxies will now rule the world, for at least a few months this summer. Every last wheezing, grunting crippled one of us.
Pubs be shutting at 5 latest for a while if that's the case!Not a fan here for domestic uses, the roll out has been driven by age primarily which means a passport is penalising the young in a pandemic which has naturally prioritised the older generations. Then there is a proposition of people who cannot take a vaccine for medical reasons, and therefore by having a vaccine passport penalises them through no fault of their own.
Why think of it as penalising anyone?
Because they'll get the vaccine later. We're not all 45 year old dentists pogue.
Surely it's pretty obvious to see why younger people would be annoyed??
You're viewing society as a risk management game then, not people who have equal rights.
"All in it together..." til the vaccine is out then everyone for themselves!
Not sure what you mean? None of this is anyone’s fault. Young people will get vaccinated later for exactly the reason you point out. If this means older people get to do certain things sooner than them, so be it. Nobody is being penalised. The sequence is completely fair and rational.
Well unless they give vaccines out to all at the same time, then effectively the younger ages groups are going to be restricted in what/where they can go until they get it done. Something which is largely out of their control.
Which is exactly how it needs to be viewed during a pandemic. Same rationale as a lot of the people who got vaccinated early were forced to shield much more carefully early on in the pandemic, even during the summer, while the rest of us were hanging out in beer gardens. If they get their life back a month or two sooner than me I’m not going to begrudge them or moan about how I’m being penalised through no fault of my own.
There’s been a two tier society throughout this pandemic. Ever since the concept of shielding/cocooning was introduced.
That's not a solid reason to continue a two tier society when the risk profile of the pandemic is at a much lower level thanks to the vaccination programme.
That's so clearly a myopic view. It is still a society and you still should try to maintain most of its functions as well as its cohesion. That cohesion breaks down if one group for whatever reason perceives itself as being unjustly penalized.
Probably didn't word it the beat. Each to their own I suppose with all this. I completely understand the logic and I agree if someone is refusing a vaccine its ridiculously selfish but younger people here haven't refused it they've just not been offered it. The higher risk have been vaccinated and plenty more would of been by the April date for example. If they opened gyms/bars for example then said to people they can't come in through no fault of their own it just seems very harsh and would do plenty more harm to people's houses who are essentially forced to stay in for longer.
Sure. I hope we don’t need vaccination passports anyway. If all the most vulnerable are properly protected then hopefully the less vulnerable can get back to a much more normal life, with or without a vaccine. In a way, this is all hypothetical. It just grinds my gears when people underestimate how hard this has been for the most elderly/vulnerable. As I said, I certainly wouldn’t begrudge them a return to full normality a month or two earlier than me. They deserve it.
Have you got a link to this study? I can't find anything that says the AstraZeneca has been shown to be effective against the South African variant.
If the early data regarding transmission reduction appears to come true when we have a wider data set, then we shouldn't need a passport. Those young enough it's then up to them about managing their risk with the virus, and the older and most vulnerable have protection. The other part about opening up society, is that the younger generations have been highlighted as critical to the recovery of the economy, and limiting their mobility will only counter that.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
On the other hand, by logic, because the benefit of all of these actions (lockdown, restrictions, pushing vaccines) are for the elderly and vulnerable, the balance of benefits-minus-costs should be positive for them. If it's not positive even for them then that's actually an argument that none of the actions should have been taken because young people only pretty much got the costs column and therefore the benefit to total society was less than the cost.
That's really interesting there is a thread that explains the slide. Have to admit it goes over my head a bit, so I don't know if what they are saying is true or not. it's good if it is true though.
The reason there’s doubts about the AZ vaccine and the SA variant is because of results from this study. Which is small patient numbers, so by no means conclusive, but more useful than the info in that Tweet. Which is all in vitro data so won’t necessarily translate to efficacy in clinical practice.
It's interpretation of the data in front of you, it's difficult to say true or false when the data they're showing is that the antigens which the vaccine targets, aren't affected by the virus mutation variant. Eg. so the original mutation that the vaccine was designed for will work with the variants.
Are they though? I get what you’re saying, but those people had their youth. Not that anyone is losing all their youth but still. A young, single person losing this time to socialise is probably worse than an older, settled person losing it.
Fair point. Although their socialisation takes different forms. Not being able to hug your grandkids for a year has to be similarly painful to missing out on a year of dating/partying.
Yeah something like 2-6 months seems ok to me, depending on country's situation. Many are thinking of it in the wrong way. It isn't punishing anyone, but helping to open earlier. The choice is either to keep closed for everyone or to use vaccine passports and open to some. Unfortunately in many places opening up for everyone is still possible.
