5 ms·

I find it funny how some countries suddenly make your life a lot easier if you have a positive test history. Canada has a fairly annoying requirement to have a

I find it funny how some countries suddenly make your life a lot easier if you have a positive test history. Canada has a fairly annoying requirement to have a negative PCR test taken within 72h of takeoff (or arrival by car), which can be dicey/expensive in many parts of the world to get, but if you have a positive PCR result from 14-180 days, this requirement drops and travel gets a lot easier than those that never got a positive covid test. Regardless of vaccination status.

oxymoran 5y ago
Why is that surprising? Recovering from a natural infection is more durable immunity than that of the vaccines. Even more so if you have both.
- tppiotrowski 5y ago
  OP might think it's funny because it appears beneficial to seek an infection despite all guidance to avoid it.
  - piva00 5y ago
    As an anecdote, that's exactly the behaviour/mentality I've heard from some people I know that still refuse to take the vaccine. They are young and fit, and their reasoning is exactly that, it's easier to just get infected, recover, and get papers for traveling that are valid for 6 months... Perverse incentives showing up, as usual.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - petre 5y ago
      It's a gamble. I'd rather benefit from all the readily available medical science developments before I get infected. In Europe getting infected is generally only valid for 180 days for travel. From what I know only Hungary would grant longer recovery certificates based on an antibody test.
    - jmopp 5y ago
      There was a Dutch website a while ago where you could order a dose of coronavirus to infect yourself with.
    - elzbardico 5y ago
      I wouldn't expose myself if I was immunologically naive to sars-cov-2, but I am happy to have had it before the vaccination as I was exposed to a more varied and wide antigenic sample than the one from the vaccines I got. Given antigenic imprinting phenomenons I am happy to have been introduced to the natural virus first.
  - tut-urut-utut 5y ago
    That's precisely what Herr Drosten, German top virologist and a member of state anti-Covid team suggested, to get infected after second shot to get a permanent immunity with a low-risk profile. Unfortunately, Germany bought too many vaccines, and they need to use them all to be able to buy even more.
    - interactinghash 5y ago
      I've never heard of Drosten saying something like that, could you provide a source?
      - tut-urut-utut 5y ago
        https://www.rtl.de/cms/virologe-christian-drosten-wuenscht-sich-corona-infektion-nach-doppelter-impfung-4826184.html https://www.rtl.de/cms/virologe-christian-drosten-wuenscht-s... In German. It was heavily discussed back in the time, can’t find it now since I’m on mobile.
    - colinjoy 5y ago
      Claiming that some scientist or study stated something or other is not useful unless context is provided. At least it should be clear when it was said, since the position of science is subject to change as new data is available or the situation changes. The quote that you probably refer to, is this one, from 3 Sep 2021 (translation by deepl): "My goal as a virologist Drosten how I would like to become immune now is: I want to have a vaccine immunity and then saddling on top of that I definitely want to have my first general infection and the second and the third at some point. I have resigned myself to that for a long time. And then I know, I'm immune for a really long time and I'll only see this virus every few years, just like I see the other coronaviruses every now and then. As a relatively healthy adult, I can take responsibility for that. There are other populations that can't. But I can only answer for myself, for my own health, because I am now twice vaccinated. And I have to admit, I would also like to be vaccinated a third time." On 9 Nov 2021, he's on the record with this (translation by deepl): "One can debate whether one has grasped this correctly at the beginning. I think that the plan to work with two doses at the beginning was correct. Because what changed here was the virus. But now we just have to acknowledge, the vaccine is not specifically targeted to the delta virus, but to a virus that is not even circulating today. The virus has changed." So definitely a preference for more than 2 shots and not suggesting that anyone do this, other than he himself, personally, given his specific risk profile. Is his stance on delta equally valid in light of the new omicron variant? Maybe, maybe not? --- source: https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/coronaskript174.pdf https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/coronaskript174.pdf
- Scoundreller 5y ago
  I wouldn’t call it more durable, but it can be more diverse/flexible (there’s more to covid-19 than a specific spike sequence). But if it was more durable (long-lasting), they wouldn’t have the 180d limit. They put that limit in because of the (lowwwww) risk of continuing to test positive after recovery, but the worst case report I’ve seen is in the 6 week after recovery range. It’s mostly Canada trying to be punitive when it comes to travelling by requiring PCR, when a within-24h antigen test would be cheap, easy, catch as many asymptomatic cases as a less-fresh PCR, and near zero-risk of false positives immediately after recovery.
  - Jimmc414 5y ago
    https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-vaccination-remains-vital https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-on...
- larkost 5y ago
  Please cite your supporting sources for that assertion. What I have been hearing does not support that, and even seems to be slightly the opposite (but not a lot of weight on those).
- samarama 5y ago
  Not really, they’re both down in The low double digits https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/232698/omicron-largely-evades-immunity-from-past/amp/ https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/232698/omicron-largely-evade...
ed_balls 5y ago
This is because Mucosal immunity.
- roywiggins 5y ago
  PCR tests can come back positive for several months post-infection, so there may be no point in testing people in that post-infection period, because it will come back with too many false positives to be useful. 180 days sounds long for that, but people do test positive for months sometimes. The reason you can test positive for so long is that it takes time for remnant RNA from the virus to totally leave your system, and even though it's not replicating (you aren't infected or infectious), the PCR test is just detecting the RNA.
  - Scoundreller 5y ago
    … which is a good argument for antigen testing (as your entire pre-entry testing regime, or in conjunction with a positive PCR history). The other difficulty (impossibility?) is in segmenting the chronically infected vs those that are just working out the remnant junk of their recovered infection.
    - hammock 5y ago
      You mean antibody, not antigen?
      - Scoundreller 5y ago
        No (I’m not ruling out any value of antibody testing, just saying I did mean antigen)
  - conistonwater 5y ago
    Pointless pedantry, just because I've been watching TWiV: the PCR test is detecting virus RNA because coronaviruses have RNA, and there's no DNA there. The rest I absolutely agree with.
pradn 5y ago
A rapid or PCR test from within the last calendar day is required to enter the USA. It's pretty hard to get that in many countries now b/c the winter/omicron surge. Plus, it's often expensive.
- tppiotrowski 5y ago
  I think the OPs frustration and what I've heard from Canadians is that the PCR is harder to come by and Canada doesn't accept rapid tests. Edit: Also, the cost is much higher. In Mexico I paid $25 for an antigen test. The PCR test cost $100.
  - Scoundreller 5y ago
    And the timing/availability. I almost got stuck somewhere because the login/pass I was supposed to use to get my result never worked and the place was basically shutdown on weekends. And that was at a $$$ private clinic.
- Scoundreller 5y ago
  USA only requires that for air passengers. Requiring overseas checkin agents to be disease doctors was okay, but asking CBP to verify paperwork and stop threats at the border was too much to ask.
  - tppiotrowski 5y ago
    Funny story I heard recently: Someone tested positive in Mexico but "had to" get home. Flew to Tijuana, walked across the border (no COVID test needed for land crossing), and caught a flight home out of San Diego. It still makes sense to protect the airline employees, but I no longer view a pre-flight test as a reliable measure to stop COVID from arriving in the US.
    - rhino369 5y ago
      What is point, we have millions of cases a day anyway.
tlear 5y ago
giarc 5y ago
I had a friend in Mexico and took PCR on Monday for Tuesday flight. Tuesday flight got cancelled. Couldn't get ahold of 2 major airlines on phone on Tuesday so just showed up to airport on Wednesday to get any flight into Canada before 72 hour test expired. A bit of a mess.
stjohnswarts 5y ago
lol 180 days? Wouldn't 180 days of covid kill you?

oxymoran 5y ago

Why is that surprising? Recovering from a natural infection is more durable immunity than that of the vaccines. Even more so if you have both.

tppiotrowski 5y ago
OP might think it's funny because it appears beneficial to seek an infection despite all guidance to avoid it.
- piva00 5y ago
  As an anecdote, that's exactly the behaviour/mentality I've heard from some people I know that still refuse to take the vaccine. They are young and fit, and their reasoning is exactly that, it's easier to just get infected, recover, and get papers for traveling that are valid for 6 months... Perverse incentives showing up, as usual.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - petre 5y ago
    It's a gamble. I'd rather benefit from all the readily available medical science developments before I get infected. In Europe getting infected is generally only valid for 180 days for travel. From what I know only Hungary would grant longer recovery certificates based on an antibody test.
  - jmopp 5y ago
    There was a Dutch website a while ago where you could order a dose of coronavirus to infect yourself with.
  - elzbardico 5y ago
    I wouldn't expose myself if I was immunologically naive to sars-cov-2, but I am happy to have had it before the vaccination as I was exposed to a more varied and wide antigenic sample than the one from the vaccines I got. Given antigenic imprinting phenomenons I am happy to have been introduced to the natural virus first.
- tut-urut-utut 5y ago
  That's precisely what Herr Drosten, German top virologist and a member of state anti-Covid team suggested, to get infected after second shot to get a permanent immunity with a low-risk profile. Unfortunately, Germany bought too many vaccines, and they need to use them all to be able to buy even more.
  - interactinghash 5y ago
    I've never heard of Drosten saying something like that, could you provide a source?
    - tut-urut-utut 5y ago
      https://www.rtl.de/cms/virologe-christian-drosten-wuenscht-sich-corona-infektion-nach-doppelter-impfung-4826184.html https://www.rtl.de/cms/virologe-christian-drosten-wuenscht-s... In German. It was heavily discussed back in the time, can’t find it now since I’m on mobile.
  - colinjoy 5y ago
    Claiming that some scientist or study stated something or other is not useful unless context is provided. At least it should be clear when it was said, since the position of science is subject to change as new data is available or the situation changes. The quote that you probably refer to, is this one, from 3 Sep 2021 (translation by deepl): "My goal as a virologist Drosten how I would like to become immune now is: I want to have a vaccine immunity and then saddling on top of that I definitely want to have my first general infection and the second and the third at some point. I have resigned myself to that for a long time. And then I know, I'm immune for a really long time and I'll only see this virus every few years, just like I see the other coronaviruses every now and then. As a relatively healthy adult, I can take responsibility for that. There are other populations that can't. But I can only answer for myself, for my own health, because I am now twice vaccinated. And I have to admit, I would also like to be vaccinated a third time." On 9 Nov 2021, he's on the record with this (translation by deepl): "One can debate whether one has grasped this correctly at the beginning. I think that the plan to work with two doses at the beginning was correct. Because what changed here was the virus. But now we just have to acknowledge, the vaccine is not specifically targeted to the delta virus, but to a virus that is not even circulating today. The virus has changed." So definitely a preference for more than 2 shots and not suggesting that anyone do this, other than he himself, personally, given his specific risk profile. Is his stance on delta equally valid in light of the new omicron variant? Maybe, maybe not? --- source: https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/coronaskript174.pdf https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/coronaskript174.pdf
Scoundreller 5y ago
I wouldn’t call it more durable, but it can be more diverse/flexible (there’s more to covid-19 than a specific spike sequence). But if it was more durable (long-lasting), they wouldn’t have the 180d limit. They put that limit in because of the (lowwwww) risk of continuing to test positive after recovery, but the worst case report I’ve seen is in the 6 week after recovery range. It’s mostly Canada trying to be punitive when it comes to travelling by requiring PCR, when a within-24h antigen test would be cheap, easy, catch as many asymptomatic cases as a less-fresh PCR, and near zero-risk of false positives immediately after recovery.
- Jimmc414 5y ago
  https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-vaccination-remains-vital https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-on...
larkost 5y ago
Please cite your supporting sources for that assertion. What I have been hearing does not support that, and even seems to be slightly the opposite (but not a lot of weight on those).
samarama 5y ago
Not really, they’re both down in The low double digits https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/232698/omicron-largely-evades-immunity-from-past/amp/ https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/232698/omicron-largely-evade...

ed_balls 5y ago

This is because Mucosal immunity.

roywiggins 5y ago
PCR tests can come back positive for several months post-infection, so there may be no point in testing people in that post-infection period, because it will come back with too many false positives to be useful. 180 days sounds long for that, but people do test positive for months sometimes. The reason you can test positive for so long is that it takes time for remnant RNA from the virus to totally leave your system, and even though it's not replicating (you aren't infected or infectious), the PCR test is just detecting the RNA.
- Scoundreller 5y ago
  … which is a good argument for antigen testing (as your entire pre-entry testing regime, or in conjunction with a positive PCR history). The other difficulty (impossibility?) is in segmenting the chronically infected vs those that are just working out the remnant junk of their recovered infection.
  - hammock 5y ago
    You mean antibody, not antigen?
    - Scoundreller 5y ago
      No (I’m not ruling out any value of antibody testing, just saying I did mean antigen)
- conistonwater 5y ago
  Pointless pedantry, just because I've been watching TWiV: the PCR test is detecting virus RNA because coronaviruses have RNA, and there's no DNA there. The rest I absolutely agree with.

pradn 5y ago

A rapid or PCR test from within the last calendar day is required to enter the USA. It's pretty hard to get that in many countries now b/c the winter/omicron surge. Plus, it's often expensive.

tppiotrowski 5y ago
I think the OPs frustration and what I've heard from Canadians is that the PCR is harder to come by and Canada doesn't accept rapid tests. Edit: Also, the cost is much higher. In Mexico I paid $25 for an antigen test. The PCR test cost $100.
- Scoundreller 5y ago
  And the timing/availability. I almost got stuck somewhere because the login/pass I was supposed to use to get my result never worked and the place was basically shutdown on weekends. And that was at a $$$ private clinic.
Scoundreller 5y ago
USA only requires that for air passengers. Requiring overseas checkin agents to be disease doctors was okay, but asking CBP to verify paperwork and stop threats at the border was too much to ask.
- tppiotrowski 5y ago
  Funny story I heard recently: Someone tested positive in Mexico but "had to" get home. Flew to Tijuana, walked across the border (no COVID test needed for land crossing), and caught a flight home out of San Diego. It still makes sense to protect the airline employees, but I no longer view a pre-flight test as a reliable measure to stop COVID from arriving in the US.
  - rhino369 5y ago
    What is point, we have millions of cases a day anyway.

tlear 5y ago

giarc 5y ago

I had a friend in Mexico and took PCR on Monday for Tuesday flight. Tuesday flight got cancelled. Couldn't get ahold of 2 major airlines on phone on Tuesday so just showed up to airport on Wednesday to get any flight into Canada before 72 hour test expired. A bit of a mess.

stjohnswarts 5y ago

lol 180 days? Wouldn't 180 days of covid kill you?