4 ms·

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

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.