‘What exactly is the real point of such a policy?’

| 14 Sep 2021 | 01:14

    It is always good to try to get our information directly from the horses mouth. So when I read Tiffany Howell’s letter, “Slippery Slope” in which I felt she made so many good points, I went online to research exactly what the CDC said about the relative contagiousness of COVID among vaccinated and non vaccinated individuals.

    I found that on July 30 2021, the CDC published in its weekly journal “Morbidity and Mortality Report,” the following statement: “The Delta infection resulted in similarly high viral loads in both vaccinated and non vaccinated people.” It did go on to state that vaccinated people appear to stay infectious for a shorter period of time, but nowhere does it say that vaccinated people are less infectious while they carry the disease.

    Way before the inoculations began rolling out restaurants reopened with good safety precautions in place. I felt totally comfortable about dining out indoors and so did may other people.

    The dubious benefit of being only among vaccinated people crammed closely together can not take the place of well-spaced tables. I know many people who have not seen the inside of a restaurant for a year and a half, and I cannot imagine any of them being comforted by the knowledge that the party right next to them if infected may be contagious for five days rather than seven.

    So I would hope that these area businesses will take a step back and examine the current facts. A policy like this affects the whole town in that it can cause division and animosity among neighbors. The only valid criterion for instituting a divisive policy like this should be: Does barring unvaccinated people from entering an establishment reliably increase the safety of those who are allowed to enter? According to what the CDC is saying right now, it does not. So I am left pondering along with Ms. Howells: What exactly is the real point of such a policy?

    Julia Calderon