5 ms·

> But with 55% of the population fully vaccinated there have been calls to stop spending taxpayers' money on a subsidised scheme that now mainly benefits those

> But with 55% of the population fully vaccinated there have been calls to stop spending taxpayers' money on a subsidised scheme that now mainly benefits those who are not yet vaccinated even though vaccines are available for all. Something similar is happening in France: the tests are going to be available but no longer subsidized/covered by the state soon in an effort to encourage people to get vaccinated instead of relying on PCR test after PCR test to prove they haven’t got COVID.

lazyjones 5y ago
It's a flawed argument of course because vaccination does not prevent transmission - even if it occurs at a lower rate among vaccinated people, a vaccination cannot replace a test. So this is another reason to reject this kind of coercion.
- croes 5y ago
  But at the moment vaccination prevents most cases of severe illness
  - jansan 5y ago
    That's personal risk. In Germany every person age 16 or above had the opportunity to get vaccinated.
- bildung 5y ago
  People don't usually use these tests to prevent transmission, but to have a formal negative test result, as this is the entry ticket to many shops and services. A proof of vaccination provides the same, while also reducing transmission.
  - cies 5y ago
    A person tested negative should not be able to spread. A vaxed person may still spread. Where's your logic?
    - ketzu 5y ago
      > A person tested negative should not be able to spread. False-negative results exist.
    - bildung 5y ago
      A person tested negative has just not been proven positive, which is different from being proven negative. PCR test sensitivity can be as low as 70%. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.16.20066787 https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.16.20066787 A vaccinated person may only spread if they are indeed infected, which is less common to begin with. Then, if they are indeed infected, the rate of transmission is much lower - as they usually don't develop heavy viral loads.
      - lazyjones 5y ago
        > A vaccinated person may only spread if they are indeed infected Um, this is the case also for the unvaccinated.
        bildung 5y ago
        That's why the sentence had a second half: ", which is less common to begin with." That's the purpose of a vaccination.
        Dwelve 5y ago
        So why not have the negative test to add an extra layer of precaution? You're just saying that this bar of risk is acceptable for you but the other one isn't, which is arbitrarily chosen.
        bildung 5y ago
        Oh I'm not against testing at all. I was just talking about why people used these these extra test centers in Germany: Because a negative test receipt was of equally weight as a prove of vaccination when participating in events etc. That will end, but that doesn't mean testing will stop. You can still go to a physician for PCR or do antigen tests.
- janpot 5y ago
  > vaccination does not prevent transmission I keep hearing this but I don't understand where it comes from. IIUC, it doesn't matter that you're as contagious when sick and vaccinated as unvaccinated. When vaccinated you are less likely to contract the disease in the first place and therefore reduce overall transmission.
  - cies 5y ago
    > When vaccinated you are less likely to contract the disease in the first place and therefore reduce overall transmission. When tested negative you are even less likely to spread within the context of the flight/concert/etc that both are attending.
  - mandmandam 5y ago
    If Restaurant A requires antigen tests, and Restaurant B requires proof of vaccination, I'm eating at Restaurant A. If there were a Restaurant C that required only proof of past Covid through antibodies, I'd eat there.
  - lazyjones 5y ago
    Either you require some proof that you're not contagious to mingle with people or you don't. The reduced risk of infection from vaccination isn't the only factor involved - go to a party with 10 sick (with Delta variant) people as a vaccinated person and see how it goes. IOW, I might have been staying safely at home for weeks before an event, while others might have been at night clubs every night. Who is more likely infected and why don't they need to be tested when they're vaccinated?
  - denvrede 5y ago
    Is that the case? The last thing I read was: For the delta variant it most likely won't matter if you're vaccinated/ill or not, you'll spread it either way. So when I get the delta variant and contract the disease but it won't do any harm because I'm vaccinated I can still spread it. If that's the case the > vaccination does not prevent transmission statement is a very valid one. I'm vaccinated but I really dislike the decision to cut public funding for the tests.
- cies 5y ago
  Not sure why you are downvoted. When unvaxed person takes a test to, for example, take a flight, we know reasonably sure he's not carrying/infecting fellow passengers. When vaxed person goes on the same flight he/she might well be carrying/infecting fellow passengers, because the vaccine does not stop infections. First we needed to get vaxed for saving the old and sick by herd immunity. Since vaccines do immunize the herd immunity is no longer discussed. Then we needed to get vaxed for stop the ICU overload. Since the old and sick are vaxed and/or have already been sick, we now have no more overload on the ICU. But we still need measured because some infection metrics need to stay out of the red to allow tourism/trade to pick up. This is some serious goalpost changing. Why?
teorema 5y ago
The problem, at least speaking as a US citizen, is that children cannot be vaccinated and are subject to testing requirements if they become ill. Also, even the vaccinated are having breakthrough cases and if not, are afraid of them or are being required to get tested again. I see this exempts children but makes the mistake of tying specific vaccination decisions to the public health benefit of having free testing. It's abusing a public health tool as a cudgel, a pattern I'm seeing in various places. If this happened in the US, it would just lead to undocumented spreading and delays in care, worsening outcomes. Im worried with things like this, and similar missteps by the US government, we're heading back to March 2020.
- JaggerJo 5y ago
  kids and people who can’t get the vaccine yet will still qualify for free testing in Germany. As an adult you currently can get the shot without a waitlist or even an appointment.
  - teorema 5y ago
    Yeah I saw that. I guess my point is it's a dangerous path to go down, using access to care that has a public health benefit as a punishment to some. It just ends up hurting everyone in the end. I wish everyone would get vaccinated. But they're not, and there's breakthrough cases (this has happened to multiple people I know personally). I guess I see this in the opposite way as intended: why should an adult who's been vaccinated be punished in trying to get tested, as a side effect of trying to punish someone who hasn't? This virus is a moving target. The test doesn't just benefit the person tested.
    - true_religion 5y ago
      I don’t see it really as punishment, just prioritization of public funds which is normal when it comes to socialized healthcare. The virus may be a moving target, but all governments have shown that they are willing to fund public safety against infection. If circumstances change, we may have to return to free and widespread testing, but the hope is that vaccination can drive the active infection rate to 0 which is something that all our measures for the past year have been unable to do.

lazyjones 5y ago

It's a flawed argument of course because vaccination does not prevent transmission - even if it occurs at a lower rate among vaccinated people, a vaccination cannot replace a test. So this is another reason to reject this kind of coercion.

croes 5y ago
But at the moment vaccination prevents most cases of severe illness
- jansan 5y ago
  That's personal risk. In Germany every person age 16 or above had the opportunity to get vaccinated.
bildung 5y ago
People don't usually use these tests to prevent transmission, but to have a formal negative test result, as this is the entry ticket to many shops and services. A proof of vaccination provides the same, while also reducing transmission.
- cies 5y ago
  A person tested negative should not be able to spread. A vaxed person may still spread. Where's your logic?
  - ketzu 5y ago
    > A person tested negative should not be able to spread. False-negative results exist.
  - bildung 5y ago
    A person tested negative has just not been proven positive, which is different from being proven negative. PCR test sensitivity can be as low as 70%. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.16.20066787 https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.16.20066787 A vaccinated person may only spread if they are indeed infected, which is less common to begin with. Then, if they are indeed infected, the rate of transmission is much lower - as they usually don't develop heavy viral loads.
    - lazyjones 5y ago
      > A vaccinated person may only spread if they are indeed infected Um, this is the case also for the unvaccinated.
      - bildung 5y ago
        That's why the sentence had a second half: ", which is less common to begin with." That's the purpose of a vaccination.
        Dwelve 5y ago
        So why not have the negative test to add an extra layer of precaution? You're just saying that this bar of risk is acceptable for you but the other one isn't, which is arbitrarily chosen.
        bildung 5y ago
        Oh I'm not against testing at all. I was just talking about why people used these these extra test centers in Germany: Because a negative test receipt was of equally weight as a prove of vaccination when participating in events etc. That will end, but that doesn't mean testing will stop. You can still go to a physician for PCR or do antigen tests.
janpot 5y ago
> vaccination does not prevent transmission I keep hearing this but I don't understand where it comes from. IIUC, it doesn't matter that you're as contagious when sick and vaccinated as unvaccinated. When vaccinated you are less likely to contract the disease in the first place and therefore reduce overall transmission.
- cies 5y ago
  > When vaccinated you are less likely to contract the disease in the first place and therefore reduce overall transmission. When tested negative you are even less likely to spread within the context of the flight/concert/etc that both are attending.
- mandmandam 5y ago
  If Restaurant A requires antigen tests, and Restaurant B requires proof of vaccination, I'm eating at Restaurant A. If there were a Restaurant C that required only proof of past Covid through antibodies, I'd eat there.
- lazyjones 5y ago
  Either you require some proof that you're not contagious to mingle with people or you don't. The reduced risk of infection from vaccination isn't the only factor involved - go to a party with 10 sick (with Delta variant) people as a vaccinated person and see how it goes. IOW, I might have been staying safely at home for weeks before an event, while others might have been at night clubs every night. Who is more likely infected and why don't they need to be tested when they're vaccinated?
- denvrede 5y ago
  Is that the case? The last thing I read was: For the delta variant it most likely won't matter if you're vaccinated/ill or not, you'll spread it either way. So when I get the delta variant and contract the disease but it won't do any harm because I'm vaccinated I can still spread it. If that's the case the > vaccination does not prevent transmission statement is a very valid one. I'm vaccinated but I really dislike the decision to cut public funding for the tests.
cies 5y ago
Not sure why you are downvoted. When unvaxed person takes a test to, for example, take a flight, we know reasonably sure he's not carrying/infecting fellow passengers. When vaxed person goes on the same flight he/she might well be carrying/infecting fellow passengers, because the vaccine does not stop infections. First we needed to get vaxed for saving the old and sick by herd immunity. Since vaccines do immunize the herd immunity is no longer discussed. Then we needed to get vaxed for stop the ICU overload. Since the old and sick are vaxed and/or have already been sick, we now have no more overload on the ICU. But we still need measured because some infection metrics need to stay out of the red to allow tourism/trade to pick up. This is some serious goalpost changing. Why?

teorema 5y ago

The problem, at least speaking as a US citizen, is that children cannot be vaccinated and are subject to testing requirements if they become ill. Also, even the vaccinated are having breakthrough cases and if not, are afraid of them or are being required to get tested again. I see this exempts children but makes the mistake of tying specific vaccination decisions to the public health benefit of having free testing. It's abusing a public health tool as a cudgel, a pattern I'm seeing in various places. If this happened in the US, it would just lead to undocumented spreading and delays in care, worsening outcomes. Im worried with things like this, and similar missteps by the US government, we're heading back to March 2020.

JaggerJo 5y ago
kids and people who can’t get the vaccine yet will still qualify for free testing in Germany. As an adult you currently can get the shot without a waitlist or even an appointment.
- teorema 5y ago
  Yeah I saw that. I guess my point is it's a dangerous path to go down, using access to care that has a public health benefit as a punishment to some. It just ends up hurting everyone in the end. I wish everyone would get vaccinated. But they're not, and there's breakthrough cases (this has happened to multiple people I know personally). I guess I see this in the opposite way as intended: why should an adult who's been vaccinated be punished in trying to get tested, as a side effect of trying to punish someone who hasn't? This virus is a moving target. The test doesn't just benefit the person tested.
  - true_religion 5y ago
    I don’t see it really as punishment, just prioritization of public funds which is normal when it comes to socialized healthcare. The virus may be a moving target, but all governments have shown that they are willing to fund public safety against infection. If circumstances change, we may have to return to free and widespread testing, but the hope is that vaccination can drive the active infection rate to 0 which is something that all our measures for the past year have been unable to do.