It is a dying skill, while reading, to not only read, but to be able to absorb what the real meaning is of the article they are reading. Whether by accident or design, the choice of words we see in articles seem chosen for their opaqueness rather than providing clarity to a text or subject matter.
The word “massive” has been frequently used to describe absolutely anything connected with the morbidity surrounding the coronavirus: what is massive?
In percentage terms is a “massive increase” five per cent, 10 per cent, 25 per cent or 50 per cent or even more?
Ask five people for their interpretation of the world “massive” and you will likely get five different answers from across the spectrum. The author’s or editor’s task has thus been achieved: confusion among the masses prevails.
So, moving on with the confusion aspect, we are all led to believe that the only way for travel to be available to the general public is for those wanting to travel to get vaccinated.
Getting a vaccination is neither hard nor dangerous, and is in fact already a requirement prior to travel to many countries across the globe.
Vaccinations stop you getting ill. Period. Their intention is not to stop you passing on anything you may come into contact with, and therein is the issue most people are missing.
While reading a blog reply to a travel article, a traveller made the comment that she “would never dream of being sat next to someone on a plane who had not been vaccinated”.
She, like many, is missing the plot.
If you have 150 vaccinated people travelling on a plane, all 150 could in theory still be carrying the coronavirus; they could then transmit this to people at the “other end”, but the impact of them doing so disappears if those whom they are in contact with have also been vaccinated.
It is this aspect that most people have lost sight of, thanks to murky information.
However, it is worth pointing out that a bonus of the current vaccination – or some of them – is that it appears that the jabs do in fact stop the virus being passed on; however, this was not the original intention and it will be many months before this extra benefit can be either proved or disproved as critical mass is achieved through the vaccination process.
The bottom line, thus, is how therefore can so-called “Vaccination Passports” prevent the spread of the disease?
If logic is applied, the only benefit of having a vaccine has is that it stops you from getting ill and thus potentially overloading the health system of that country you happen to be in. Therefore, having a negative PCR test should still be a prerequisite for travelling, if the intention is to stop the spread of the virus. Surely!
There is also one other small but interesting facet of the “Vaccination Passport hype”. Leaving aside the political games EU leaders have resorted to in an attempt to cover their own shortcomings.
The effectiveness of the Moderna and Pfizer jabs, is apparently measured as to (quote) “how they protect people against moderate to severe Covid- 19 disease, not how well they prevent infection or the spread of it”. This is a plain and simple medical fact. The science behind these two jabs also suspects that in the longer term they may also or possibly stop the spread of the disease, but again this will take some time and greater scrutiny to either prove or disprove whether the virus has been stopped from jumping from one person to another.
At the end of the day, as long as people think that it is safe to fly, they will fly, regardless of the facts behind the theories that aim to get the world back into the comfort zone.
Just as the world talked itself into a downward frenzy a year ago, now is the time for the pendulum to swing the other way.
(Photo: Triggermouse from Pixabay)