Levistus's_Leviathan
5e Freelancer
I thought the third part was this:Okay, we need a third part.
We just need better people.
I thought the third part was this:Okay, we need a third part.
We just need better people.
Yes, so it is very likely that 95% immunity to the disease will lead to a large amount of reduction in passing the disease on to other people.So, because biology is incredibly complicated, we need to talk about the difference between infection, and disease. In many North American bat populations, infection with the virus that causes rabies is endemic - pretty much every bat you come across is likely to be infected. However, bats show no symptoms of rabies.
If we want to be picky (and here, it pays to be so), the disease is not the infection, but a collection of symptoms - often called a "syndrome" - caused by that infection. The virus we are dealing with is SARS-CoV-2 (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2), and the disease is covid-19 (Coronavirus Disease - 2019). So, technically speaking, we can talk about immunity to infection, and immunity to the disease separately.
The basic test for efficacy of a vaccine is a test for whether you get the disease. The vaccine typically manages this by reducing the viral load down to levels such that it cannot cause disease. This usually means that your viral load is also low enough that you cannot effectively transmit the virus. The fact of the matter is that it is terribly uncommon for a vaccine to make you immune to the disease, but also infectious.
However, when a scientist says something is "not entirely clear" that usually means they haven't SPECIFICALLY tested that scenario, which would require an entirely different testing regimen. So, the scientist, being totally truthful, can't tell you for absolute certainty that you aren't shedding virus, because they've been busy testing whether it will make you sick. The fact that they haven't tested that specific issue does not mean there's any real concern around it in terms of the health benefits of the vaccine.
My optimistic bound is most things open in the US by start of June. My pessimistic is everything open by end of June but 50% of the folks won't have bothered with the vaccine and all of the lawsuits will be about whether schools and employers can require it.
Employment law and things like access to healthcare can be used to pressure people.It might be an open question with employers, but Jacobson v. Massachusetts seems to suggest it can be done by the state, and that was with a vaccine a lot more dangerous than these likely are.
Employment law and things like access to healthcare can be used to pressure people.
Health and safety workplace law. Alit of human rights only apply in your private life.
Basically you can wear what you want for example but your boss can make you wear safety equipment or fire your ass.
Sure you don't have to wear it but they don't have to employ you either.
Also outside of various categories the boss can legally discriminate against you for all sorts of stupid reasons.
They don't like the colour of your shoes tough luck. No Covid vaccination tough luck.
Apply that logic to things like childcare, schooling, access to benefits, healthcare etc they can do a fair bit of legal arm twisting.
Someone posted an old polio vaccination thing from the 1960s on Reddit. Basically you didn't get a choice.
That's likely the legal case I referenced.
And honestly, health-related rules make a hell of a lot more sense than half of what employers are allowed to do. Its just that when its "You have to take this injection which can entirely possibly have some effect on some parts of the populace" it gets...sticky.
Obviously I hope the vaccine is effective and saves many lives. But from just a gamer's view (which is very small in perspective in the scheme of people's lives), I hope it allows Gen Con to happen this year.

(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.