zlacker

>>themgt+(OP)
Despite this tech companies are still requiring vaccines to come work in person, yet are wondering why no one wants to go back...

Testing is way safer at this point than two doses against a strain that hasn't been dominant since late 2020. Lots of people are getting sick anyways even if they are vaccinated from other strains they aren't protected against, yet we discriminate against anyone who decided not to get the shot for religious reasons, or who can't get it for medical reasons.

The world will look back on these years as collective insanity.

>>imperi+5b1
> The world will look back on these years as collective insanity.

I'm a biochemist, and I can assure you that scientists have been dismayed at the collective insanity since around March 2020, but we're definitely not dismayed at the same things as you are.

>>epgui+Np1
I had a sign at my university entrance asking a vaccine status or current test as a "negative proof for covid19". As in your vaccine status proofs you dont have covid19.

Any scientist who isnt deeply ashamed of this should really get the money for their degree back.

Pretending that vaccines are in any way safer then or as safe as actual tests is simply horrific.

>>cf141q+KT1
The word “proof” in that context just doesn’t mean what you think it means. It’s an administrative context, not a scientific context. It’s not that hard to understand.

>>epgui+qM5
Apparently i am a bit slow. Please do elaborate, i am really curious how your vaccine status can be used to verify that there is no indication for a covid infection.

>>cf141q+jj6
It has nothing to do with biology. The word “proof” in this context just refers to the administrative document required to access the service or location you want to access. It’s purely an administrative construct, and it has nothing to do with “proving”, logically or scientifically speaking, that you are not infected.

>>epgui+Fs6
It is quite the brain acrobatics to focus on it not being a test, duh, but a document. The point is what this document is supposed to document. And that is there being no indication, that you are infected with COVID.

The term is actually well defined, especially what is supposed to be documented by it. I am German and they borrowed it straight from the government regulation. The "Negativnachweis" https://www.rv.hessenrecht.hessen.de/bshe/document/jlr-Coron...

>(1) Soweit nach dieser Verordnung der Nachweis zu führen ist, dass keine Anhaltspunkte für eine Infektion mit dem SARS-CoV-2-Virus vorliegen (Negativnachweis), kann dies erfolgen durch

>(1) >If, according to this regulation, proof must be provide that there are no indications of infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus (negative proof), this can be done by...

And you being vaccinated with a leaky vaccine doesnt mean there is no indication you are infected. Not in any way. This is misinformation that actually kills, because it allows COVID to spread. And its not information spread by some morons who drink bleach but by the government and quite literally taped to the doors of the figurative house of science. Because people lack the integrity to call out bullshit for what it is.