ladder
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2013
- Messages
- 7,255
- Likes
- 12,207
Sense? This WHO vaccine certification itself makes sense?So what exactly is the point of vaccinating people who have had a " non WHO certified vaccine' ? Either they are treated as non vaccinated or as vaccinated. Nothing else makes sense.
What sense the 72 hours Negative RTPCR holds? Can't a person be infected after he/she has undergone test?
It's reducing the risk rather than eliminating as the means of elimination of risk is currently impractical.
Thus the differentiation between the non-approved vaccination and 'un vaccinated'
The difference is between reasonable caution ( un approved vaccination) vs necessity ( unvaccinated).
Remember Sputnik et al. are unapproved because of incomplete data and not because of the fact that their efficacy is below 50%.
I wish things were that simple. If it were Chinese wouldn't have run after everybody with an anal probe. They would have respected the negetive RTPCR from atleast some countries.
These things are more about one-upmanship than logic.
Taking your original logic further, what is the guarantee that anybody who has taken vaccine sufficiently prior to travel has developed antibody? Maintains in him both sufficient quality and quantity of antibody?
With what guarantee can you say there won't be any breakthrough infections through him/her and that wouldn't spread during this breakthrough infection?
While the lower prevalence of all of the above factors is true among vaccinated cohort, this vaccination passport is at individual level where all the above can be presumed and not guaranteed.
Thus, my original assertion about differentiation between the un approved vaccinated person and non vaccinated person.