4 ms·

> the upcoming travel pass will cover ... and recovered (i.e. positive antibody test of immunity) From the linked article: >For travellers who have recovered

> the upcoming travel pass will cover ... and recovered (i.e. positive antibody test of immunity) From the linked article: >For travellers who have recovered from the virus: date of the positive test result, an issuer of the certificate, date of issuance, validity date EU Travel Pass doesn't care about your antibodies.

walterbell 5y ago
> EU Travel Pass doesn't care about your antibodies. Hmm, you are right :( The rules are still evolving. They will need to care, since the people who recovered after a positive test are much fewer than people who recovered without being tested. From https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_21_1187 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_... > The period of relevance of certificates depends on scientific evidence and will be determined by the verifiers following their national rules. As new scientific evidence is emerging, the periods for which certificates are relevant for waiver of applicable public health requirements could be adjusted ...The regulation also introduces some basic principles, for example, setting the maximum validity period of the certificate of recovery at 180 days. These principles could be adjusted by the Commission through delegated acts to align with new scientific evidence once it is available. Going strictly by the text above, what would happen to the recovered people after 180 days? If they have immunity they cannot get another positive test, so no recovery certificate and no travel? Or if you already recovered more than 6 months ago, you cannot travel? It will come down to some metric of immunity, which is apparently "TBD" but will almost immediately be a concern, as all stakeholders look more closely at the rules, logic and implications. The EU and many western governments are not dictatorships, relying on human judgement to enforce policy. If proposed policies fail basic checks of reason and fairness, humans at border checkpoints can exercise judgement. If and when policy makers find their policy is not enforceable, they can improve the policy until it is supported by science, citizens and enforcers. The travel industry expects these passes to bring their customers back. They will not sit quietly while their recovered/immune customers are blocked by incompetent bureaucracy from spending money across the EU, without a substantive scientific case.
- virgilp 5y ago
  I wouldn't bank on them extending "recovery" duration... they'll simply ask for proof of vaccination after those 180 days.
  - walterbell 5y ago
    They cannot legally force/mandate vaccinations, and they repeat that statement throughout the docs. At most, they could insist that recovered people continue to get PCR tested: either you're negative and free to travel, or it will be a false positive, then you wait two (?) weeks and get a magical DHCP lease for 6-month "recovery certificate". That would equate to a PCR-test industry tax on travel, which opens up several avenues for legal/policy challenge, e.g. test types, costs, subsidies, profit margins, supply chain ownership, benefits, numerical parameters, equipment calibration, performance (false positives/negatives). Ludicrous rules don't punish people (who find workarounds), they decrease state power and credibility, reducing compliance with other, sensible, regulations. Sanity will eventually prevail, as long as citizens hold all policy proposals to high standards of transparency, reason and science. Airplanes and hotels and tourist-destination cities want their customers back, and they will advocate on their behalf. The key is to avoid fights about specific interventions (like decade-old vaccines) and focus on laws (including liability) developed over centuries, and immune systems battle-tested even longer than laws.
    - virgilp 5y ago
      This is all speculation. We'll see soon enough how this all plays out - I was just expressing my doubt that any country will say "if you had COVID 3 years ago, you're free to travel". They might lift restrictions completely, but if they keep restrictions, I don't expect them to be lifted for people who had COVID really long ago. There will be other rules, but "had COVID more than 180 days ago" seems an unlikely one. That's all.
      - walterbell 5y ago
        There have been studies which claim that prior infection by SARS1 (2003) has conferred some immune protection against SARS2 (2020). That would be 17 years, not 180 days. With billions of dollars at stake on multiple sides of proposed policy, there is sufficient financial incentive to study very closely the mechanisms of both natural and artificial immunity. Policy makers can selectively highlight or ignore science, but not forever. In the US, some early policies were overturned by later court rulings, as data became available for lawsuits.

walterbell 5y ago

> EU Travel Pass doesn't care about your antibodies. Hmm, you are right :( The rules are still evolving. They will need to care, since the people who recovered after a positive test are much fewer than people who recovered without being tested. From https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_21_1187 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_... > The period of relevance of certificates depends on scientific evidence and will be determined by the verifiers following their national rules. As new scientific evidence is emerging, the periods for which certificates are relevant for waiver of applicable public health requirements could be adjusted ...The regulation also introduces some basic principles, for example, setting the maximum validity period of the certificate of recovery at 180 days. These principles could be adjusted by the Commission through delegated acts to align with new scientific evidence once it is available. Going strictly by the text above, what would happen to the recovered people after 180 days? If they have immunity they cannot get another positive test, so no recovery certificate and no travel? Or if you already recovered more than 6 months ago, you cannot travel? It will come down to some metric of immunity, which is apparently "TBD" but will almost immediately be a concern, as all stakeholders look more closely at the rules, logic and implications. The EU and many western governments are not dictatorships, relying on human judgement to enforce policy. If proposed policies fail basic checks of reason and fairness, humans at border checkpoints can exercise judgement. If and when policy makers find their policy is not enforceable, they can improve the policy until it is supported by science, citizens and enforcers. The travel industry expects these passes to bring their customers back. They will not sit quietly while their recovered/immune customers are blocked by incompetent bureaucracy from spending money across the EU, without a substantive scientific case.

virgilp 5y ago
I wouldn't bank on them extending "recovery" duration... they'll simply ask for proof of vaccination after those 180 days.
- walterbell 5y ago
  They cannot legally force/mandate vaccinations, and they repeat that statement throughout the docs. At most, they could insist that recovered people continue to get PCR tested: either you're negative and free to travel, or it will be a false positive, then you wait two (?) weeks and get a magical DHCP lease for 6-month "recovery certificate". That would equate to a PCR-test industry tax on travel, which opens up several avenues for legal/policy challenge, e.g. test types, costs, subsidies, profit margins, supply chain ownership, benefits, numerical parameters, equipment calibration, performance (false positives/negatives). Ludicrous rules don't punish people (who find workarounds), they decrease state power and credibility, reducing compliance with other, sensible, regulations. Sanity will eventually prevail, as long as citizens hold all policy proposals to high standards of transparency, reason and science. Airplanes and hotels and tourist-destination cities want their customers back, and they will advocate on their behalf. The key is to avoid fights about specific interventions (like decade-old vaccines) and focus on laws (including liability) developed over centuries, and immune systems battle-tested even longer than laws.
  - virgilp 5y ago
    This is all speculation. We'll see soon enough how this all plays out - I was just expressing my doubt that any country will say "if you had COVID 3 years ago, you're free to travel". They might lift restrictions completely, but if they keep restrictions, I don't expect them to be lifted for people who had COVID really long ago. There will be other rules, but "had COVID more than 180 days ago" seems an unlikely one. That's all.
    - walterbell 5y ago
      There have been studies which claim that prior infection by SARS1 (2003) has conferred some immune protection against SARS2 (2020). That would be 17 years, not 180 days. With billions of dollars at stake on multiple sides of proposed policy, there is sufficient financial incentive to study very closely the mechanisms of both natural and artificial immunity. Policy makers can selectively highlight or ignore science, but not forever. In the US, some early policies were overturned by later court rulings, as data became available for lawsuits.