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.
False-negative results exist.
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.
Um, this is the case also for the unvaccinated.
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.
When tested negative you are even less likely to spread within the context of the flight/concert/etc that both are attending.
If there were a Restaurant C that required only proof of past Covid through antibodies, I'd eat there.
> 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.
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?