?Vaccine or Negative Test Required to Attend UM Games Starting 1/1/22

Submitted by Kilgore Trout on December 29th, 2021 at 12:34 PM

Looks like you will be required to prove vaccination or a negative test within 72 hours to attend games starting next week. Not much in the way of details on how it is going to be enforced. I don't think I really have an opinion on this one way or the other, but god speed to the ushers and ticket takers who will be tasked with verifying this for 12k people on 1/8 for the MSU game. 

MGoStrength

December 29th, 2021 at 5:32 PM ^

Hi, logging in to tell you in the strongest possible terms to get over yourself.

The tone of your message is problematic.  Your opinion is valid as is the person's you're replying to.  

Masks are an essential way for us all to ensure the health, safety, and survival of more people.

This is a prime example of why you shouldn't be so adamant about your stance.  The most relevant data currently suggest some types of masks are highly effective at preventing Covid transmission whereas other types are not effective at all.  This is why we shouldn't be so adamant about our opinions on a relatively new topic.

JamieH

December 29th, 2021 at 1:57 PM ^

Jesus dude.  If people wearing masks "makes you feel sick" you need to get a stronger stomach.

I just spent some time at Disney, where they have an indoor masking requirement. Other than it getting a bit hot sometimes and making it hard to get a good family photo, the masks were completely irrelevant to our enjoyment.  

matty blue

December 29th, 2021 at 2:33 PM ^

you won't be missed.  there are millions and millions of people that see wearing masks, not as an imposition on personal liberties, but as a way to help keep the people around them safer.  not wearing a mask and / or not being vaccinated is, BY DEFINITION, antisocial behavior. 

i don't like being around antisocial people, feel free to not hurry back.

MGoStrength

December 29th, 2021 at 9:03 PM ^

not wearing a mask and / or not being vaccinated is, BY DEFINITION, antisocial behavior. 

i don't like being around antisocial people, feel free to not hurry back.

While I don't agree with his take on masks either, I think you may be representing a group of people that are not free of fault either.  Shaming people who chose not to the get the vaccine is not only counter to what you want (improve vaccination rates), but causes further harm by making them feel more coerced and distrustful of those promoting it.  I would encourage you to listen to infectious disease ebioethicist Zeb Jamrozik on the harms of shaming people who chose to vaccinate.  Here's a link to some of that if you're interested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFRjz6w3DxM&t=2906s

matty blue

December 29th, 2021 at 10:22 PM ^

no.

i'm not 'shaming' anyone.  if they don't want to wear a mask and get vaccinated, that's their choice. i'm done trying to convince people of anything whatsoever.

what i won't back down from, however, is my contention that making that choice violates a social contract.  if we want to participate in society, we agree to not endanger the other members of that society.  refusing to get vaccinated and refusing to wear a mask endangers others.  period, full stop. 

MGoStrength

December 29th, 2021 at 10:59 PM ^

i'm not 'shaming' anyone.

I think the tone of your post is indicative of people that shame those that chose not to get vaccinated.

if we want to participate in society, we agree to not endanger the other members of that society. 

Gosh, that must be a nice world you live in.  I can pick all sorts of holes in that argument.  There are all sorts of ways the people put others in danger of all the time.  Hell, texting and driving is probably a lot more dangerous than not getting vaccinated.

refusing to get vaccinated and refusing to wear a mask endangers others.

The best data we have currently suggests cloth masks are no better than no mask at all at preventing the spread of Covid.  So, just saying refusing to wear a mask endangers others is misleading.  By that logic wearing a cloth mask equally endangers others, but you seem fine with that.  I don't think it's that simple and I don't feel it's my place to tell anyone what they need to do with their bodies.  I am capable of taking care of my own health status by above all being fit and healthy and also getting vaccinated myself.  The question is why are you so fearful for others and why do you feel others need to protect them?

matty blue

December 30th, 2021 at 9:32 AM ^

you're obviously an intelligent, well-informed person.

that said:

  • i made no distinction between cloth and medically-useful masks, so i'm not sure how you make the inference that i'm "fine with" wearing them.  they are not "no better than no mask at all," but whatever.  if believing that leads one to wearing a non-cloth mask, great.
  • i'm not sure why it matters, but yes, some of us (myself included, probably) sometimes do things that may or may not be more dangerous to others than going mask- and vax-less.  stipulated.  doing those more-dangerous things also breaks the social contract.  are we going to argue that?

beyond that,

The question is why are you so fearful for others and why do you feel others need to protect them?

"protecting others" is, in my opinion, the very foundation of a truly civilized society.  if that means wearing a (medically useful) mask and getting vaccinated, thus reducing the chances of others getting sick and dying, even marginally?  i'm okay with that.

blue in dc

December 30th, 2021 at 10:19 AM ^

Once again, would love to see these studies that say “ cloth masks are no better than no mask at all at preventing the spread of Covid.“

I think if you read them you will see that most experts are saying that surgical masks and N95 masks are significantly better, not that cloth masks do nothing.    They will probably also explain that since better masks are now more widely available it is better to use a better mask.

Finally they may note that this is even more important because omicron is a more transmissible variant.

None of this is particularly surprising as the science has always said surgical masks and n-95 masks are better.

FireUpChips

December 29th, 2021 at 12:54 PM ^

Good news for everybody. Negative Covid test allows everybody to attend still. 

OldMaize16

December 29th, 2021 at 12:56 PM ^

Okay, but what about all the fully vaccinated people who are testing positive right now. The CDC showed their hand with the drop from 10 days to 5 days, the pandemic is over.

BKBlue94

December 29th, 2021 at 1:12 PM ^

Hopefully they're recovering well. The vaccine helps people recover and not get hospitalized, in addition to preventing some people from getting infected at all. I had a family member who was boosted get covid a couple weeks ago, but recovered quick and felt fine after five days. She was really glad she had gotten the vaccine to help avoid serious illness. You do not want to get this without having had a vaccine, it is much more likely to hit you hard. 

WindyCityBlue

December 29th, 2021 at 1:31 PM ^

You are correct about hospitalization and dying, but I think the latest data is showing the majority of people testing positive (which is distinct from hospitalization or dying) are vaccinated, especially when considering the latest variant. 

I'm not disagreeing with the trust of your post (I'm fully vaccinated, booster and all), just that there is some nuance to these discussions that are worth highlighting.

HateSparty

December 29th, 2021 at 1:43 PM ^

More people are vaxxed versus unvaxxed in our society.  If the mitigation efforts were not necessary or helpful, the numbers should be consistent with those of hospitalizations and deaths. Yet, the minority is the overwhelming majority of deaths and hospitalizations right now.  Hence, mitigation works so it is being enforced.

JamieH

December 29th, 2021 at 2:20 PM ^

The majority of people are vaccinated.   So really what you want to compare is the percentage of vaxxed people testing positive to the percentage of unvaccinated people testing positive.

There is also the factor that vaccinated people are probably more careful overall and more likely to get tests while asymptomatic for the safety of others in their family/friends circles.  So they are probably taking more tests than unvaccinated people.

I guarantee you there is nothing that would cause vaccinated people to be MORE susceptible to getting Omicron.

WindyCityBlue

December 29th, 2021 at 2:39 PM ^

Kinda.  What has changed very significantly over time is what it means to test positive.  Early on, someone testing positive for COVID was a kin to Magic Johnson announcing he was HIV positive. Now that we know more about COVID, and with relation to the latest variant (which is proving to hit the "sweet spot" of virus strains), testing positive for COVID means something very different, especially to those who are vaccinated.  But yet, it seems to me that haven't appropriately adjusted for that.

MGoStrength

December 29th, 2021 at 9:18 PM ^

I don't put a ton value on anecdotal evidence when we have better evidence available, but I'll give you my personal experience.  I am 42 years old, at a healthy body weight, exercises regularly, and am fully vaccinated.  My wife is 32 years old, at a healthy body weight, exercises regularly, but has chosen not to get vaccinated.  So, we make an interesting case study with a tiny sample size.  We both tested positive for Covid about 10 days ago.  She had typical cold symptoms like headache, congestion, runny nose, cough, for about a week and lost her sense of taste for 3 days or so.  I never had any symptoms.  This shows a few things.  One, the vaccination was good at preventing symptoms for me.  Two, the vaccine did not prevent me from getting Covid.  Three, not getting vaccinated made my wife's symptoms much worse than mine.  Four, her symptoms were still mild and nothing I'd be concerned about.  Do with that as you will.

OldMaize16

December 29th, 2021 at 1:44 PM ^

Straight from Faucis mouth the drop in days was so we don’t have so many people out of work at the same time. Either the CDC is being irresponsible and favoring industry in having us drop our isolation time with a more contagious strain, or they see that the virus has mutated to the point of being less dangerous

blue in dc

December 29th, 2021 at 3:20 PM ^

“Given what we currently know about COVID-19 and the Omicron variant, CDC is shortening the recommended time for isolation for the public. People with COVID-19 should isolate for 5 days and if they are asymptomatic or their symptoms are resolving (without fever for 24 hours), follow that by 5 days of wearing a mask when around others to minimize the risk of infecting people they encounter. The change is motivated by science demonstrating that the majority of SARS-CoV-2 transmission occurs early in the course of illness, generally in the 1-2 days prior to onset of symptoms and the 2-3 days after.”

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s1227-isolation-quarantine-guidance.html

Seems like a science based decision to me.

MGoStrength

December 29th, 2021 at 9:40 PM ^

Well, just because it's science doesn't mean they are interpreting it correctly and without bias.  The CDC has had quite a few blunders and inaccuracies in their messaging.  I think there is some evidence to suggest you shouldn't just take their word for it.  They give you the evidence that supports their recommendations.  That is drastically different than simply evaluating the body of evidence.  There is a reason they are not doing any studies on natural immunity, because they don't want to hear it's effective because that might mean less people get vaccinated.  It shouldn't be this way from a health organization, but it is.

ColoradoBlue

December 29th, 2021 at 1:24 PM ^

Good Lord - how is this so freakin' hard to grasp:  a vaccine does not flat out prevent infection.  No one ever claimed it did, particularly when the virus keeps mutating (in part, because the unvaccinated folks keep providing it the runway for that).

The vaccines give your immune system a head start on fighting the infection.  Sometimes this results in first round KO.  Sometimes in a 3rd round KO.  But you will not lose the fight.  The unvaccinated have a much higher chance of going into the later rounds or even losing the fight.

blue in dc

December 29th, 2021 at 4:50 PM ^

Viruses mutate more with more cases.   Being vaccinated reduces the number of cases.    Reducing the number of cases, reduces the number of mutations.   And the misinformation you are contributing to isn’t comical, it is sad.   Sad that people insist on passing along misinformation that increases vaccine hesitancy making the whole covid situation so much worse than it needs to be, at least here in the US where vaccines are readily available.

LeCheezus

December 29th, 2021 at 2:21 PM ^

I'll be clear and say I've been fully vaccinated and boosted.  However, to say that nobody ever claimed this vaccine would prevent infection is 100% false.  I suppose you could claim no "credible source" ever said that, but it's pretty clear that the goalposts have moved all over the place during the pandemic - from Fauci to the CDC to the WHO.  And yes, I understand that as we learn more, hypotheses and guidance have to be updated - THAT is science.  It still shocks me how many people think that the opinions of doctors and scientists are actually "science."

JamieH

December 29th, 2021 at 2:55 PM ^

No one EVER said the vaccine would 100% protect against infection.  No vaccine in history has done that.

What they DID say was that the vaccine protected about 94% against infection of the ORIGINAL STRAIN of the virus.  That number has steadily dropped as the virus has mutated and the time from immunization has grown.

LeCheezus

December 29th, 2021 at 3:11 PM ^

I didn't use the term "100% prevent infection", but yes, there were many mentions as the vaccine being the key to preventing infection - preventing infection was the initial benchmark.  To say it was clear from the start that it was only to reduce the severity of the disease after catching COVID is revisionist history, and as the poster below me stated very well, adds to the distrust of those skeptical of the vaccine.

Wasn't smallpox eradicated by a vaccine?  Polio/MMR also pretty well under control with vaccines, yes?   

LeCheezus

December 29th, 2021 at 9:52 PM ^

So a vaccine has or has not fully  prevented infection?  You just authoritatively said that has never happened.  
 

Is it starting to make sense to you why a quarter of the population is refusing to take the vaccine?  Or is it just easier to blame things on their political leanings?

drjaws

December 30th, 2021 at 12:57 PM ^

you're moving goalposts and changing the point of your argument but .... here.

Wasn't smallpox eradicated by a vaccine?  Polio/MMR also pretty well under control with vaccines, yes?   

No. Smallpox was like 1/2 a century before it was considered "eradicated," but it never was as it still pops up here and there mostly in 3rd world countries. Vaccines don't eradicate anything. They prime your immune system to be able to handle infections better with less severe symptoms. And the vaccines you mention were around for decades before anything was considered "eradicated." Give covid vaccines 20 years and then re-ask this question.

So a vaccine has or has not fully  prevented infection?

No, it has not ever prevented an infection. It isn't a force field. You still get the infection. It prevents the initial infection from spreading and advancing to the point you from get sick. Any bug we are vaccinated against (bacteria or virus) still exist. They're still out there. They still infect people occasionally. The vaccines do not prevent infection. They prime your body to kill off the virus/bacteria very very very early in the infection so you never know you got "sick." 

pescadero

December 30th, 2021 at 6:45 AM ^

"Wasn't smallpox eradicated by a vaccine?  Polio/MMR also pretty well under control with vaccines, yes? "

 

Yes... And those vaccine also were not 100% effective at preventing infection. Like all vaccines, given enough viral exposure they will fail... And like all vaccines, they don't work for everyone.

newtopos

December 29th, 2021 at 2:26 PM ^

As someone who is boosted and very pro-vax, I don't think it helps the cause to claim that "no one ever claimed" it prevented infection.  The early tests on these vaccines absolutely were looking at infection and transmission, the data supported positive views on severely reducing infection/transmission, and that data was widely trumpeted.  Over time, the data on infection/transmission have changed (and we have now have data about how long the protection lasts).  And yes, we have new variants which also change the reality on the ground (especially with respect to transmission).  Rather than attempt to re-write history, which gives skeptical folks reason to not trust you, it is better in my opinion to explain that yes, initially we believed and hoped that these vaccines would greatly limit or prevent infection/transmission and early data supported that, but we have more information and data now, and while the vaccines might not limit or prevent infections/transmission to the same extent that we originally hoped, they are still very significantly reducing severe disease and death.   

MGoStrength

December 29th, 2021 at 9:59 PM ^

Good Lord - how is this so freakin' hard to grasp:  a vaccine does not flat out prevent infection.  

No one ever claimed it did

Yes they did.  Many have claimed that precisely.  This is one of the problems with coercion and bad messaging that leads to public distrust.  

Angry-Dad

December 29th, 2021 at 12:56 PM ^

Going to be hard to police for people that want to get around it.  Hopefully that will be a small precentage.  I do appreciate the attempt to do something.  It would be cool if people had a sense of community and wanting to collectively come together to do everything we could to help slow this virus. Naive I know, but it would be nice to see.

el segundo

December 29th, 2021 at 1:28 PM ^

It's not hard to enforce. My partner runs a performance venue that has a vaccine/negative test requirement. Patrons have to show vaccine card or other proof of vaccination outside the front door, before entering the lobby. If they don't have proof of vaccine, they can show proof of a negative test within 24-48 hours (I forget exactly what the time window is). If they don't have proof of a negative test, there is rapid testing available on site. If someone can't satisfy any of these requirements, they can go home.

The real problem that she's encountered is hostility from people who don't like the requirement or who claim to have not been informed about it. She's taken an enormous amount of verbal abuse from people who "forgot" their vaccine cards and don't want to take a test. If there's this kind of conduct at a performing arts venue, I can imagine that it will be much, much worse at a sporting event, where many of the patrons think that the verbal abuse of opposing players and fans is part of the "fun."

Angry-Dad

December 29th, 2021 at 1:53 PM ^

I cannot understand someone giving a ticket checker a hard time about a policy they have nothing to do with.  This current atmosphere of being a "prick" because of "personal freedom" is painful to watch.  I know it has always been a thing, but really feels more prevelant in the last few years.  

Not sure when decency became a weakness, but I hope it is a trend that quickly passes.