Thread by @AstorAaron

I've been clear all along that I support @EggerDC in this debate: previous infection-induced immunity should count as immune in a mandate. Antibody or T-cell tests are imperfect, but they could suffice. That said, the replies to BOTH threads here reflect a bigger problem.

https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/1438887447455322122

@EggerDC That bigger problem is an unwillingness to take at face value the thing being discussed. Those who want to accept infection-induced immunity are deemed anti-vax enablers. Those who oppose an exemption are authoritarians who just want to control people.

In fact, this follows a common pattern that is not just a "very online" phenomenon: a tendency to push the debate into extreme directions. It's unhealthy because this should be a nuanced policy debate over ever-involving science and not a comic book good v. evil fight.

To be sure, there ARE people with extreme positions. And there are trolls who pretend to take extreme positions. But I really do believe most people want to find a workable, sensible approach in line with the preponderance of scientific evidence.

So here is what I take as the strength in each side's position. For Eggers, he is right to say that getting vaxxed after infection is the right personal health decision, BUT not needed to prevent "grave risk" per OSHA. For Frum, he is right that antibody tests are ALSO invasive.

Of course, this raises the question of what the mandate is trying to achieve: Is it just to attain "workplace" safety so people don't get covid from co-workers on the job? Or is it more a way to get population-level immunity via a mechanism that will reach the most people?

@DemFromCT's point here is key too. Is the mandate about stopping or slowing infections? Or is it about preventing severity and hospitalization? Relatedly, is OSHA trying to prevent hospitalization *of workers*? (Employers would benefit too).

https://twitter.com/DemFromCT/status/1439207337454194691?s=20

@DemFromCT My overall view hasn't changed - We need to get from pandemic to endemic and the only way is through mass population immunity. The sooner we get there the better (to give less time and space for immune-evading variants to emerge). It's a global issue too.

@DemFromCT The Delta wave here in the South has made it clear that this is still far too much dry tinder out there. And unlike in high-vax San Francisco, our hospitals really are overrun. WE need the mandates precisely because of the resistance to the vaccine, which means more conflict.

@DemFromCT But if this conflict is going to be fought in the red states with low vax rates, it might make more sense to be nimble here and allow for previous infection-induced immunity to suffice - as long as it can be proven in an antibody or T-cell test.

@DemFromCT Because the main reason most people didn't get vaccinated here is that they didn't think they'd get covid, or that covid would be so bad - esp for middle age people. The side effect calculations here are skewed when people underestimate the virus risk.