You are imposing your own personal beliefs about the proper prioritization on everyone, despite the fact that most of the relevant policy makers in this country disagree with that prioritization.

I think there are good arguments for your scheme, and other countries and a few states have more or less adopted it. But this is not what most states have done, and I cannot blame someone for following the consensus policy of their state, especially when there are plenty of reasonable moral arguments supporting that policy as well.

It is worth noting that the Olympic Games, which I think are the best comparison to the WSOP, has already announced their biosecurity protocols for holding the games in July. This includes limited/none international spectators, social distancing requirements, face masks and restrictions on movement and social interaction for athletes and their coaches.

Chances of a May/June 'normal' WSOP are 0%. Chances of a Fall WSOP with Covid protocols/restrictions are probably in the 90%+. Chances of a Fall WSOP with no restrictions/protocols at all are probably only about 30%

Super Bowl was not green lit as normal, so it's is not an example to recommend no restrictions and full attendance.

We won't know until it comes. Book refundable tickets. If one of these mutants breaks vaccine and spreads worldwide, all bets are off.

That equals to over 120+%

In all seriousness, if the WSOP happens with no restrictions, I will be there.
If there are restrictions, I will not be there.

Hard to measure spring break as super spreader event when everyone goes back to a whole bunch of random places all over the country.

Huh?
Have you been in contact with anyone who tested positive since spring break?
No? You probably got it at spring break.

Seems pretty straight forward

Super Bowl and spring break are terrible comparisons, but it's not the WSOP's role to be monitoring these events anyway, which is good since they don't really have the means to do so.

The relevant policy makers are made up of almost entirely human pieces of garbage so I'm fine with that.

People can make their own moral choices. I made specific points about the vaccine but also made the general point that just because something is legal doesn't make it moral or immoral.

See what happens I guess.

In the U.K. at least, and I’d be suprised if it isn’t universal, AZ (and I think Pfizer) have to be used within 6 hours of the bottle being opened, and thus they can’t carry any over to the next day.

They get 8-10 shots out of a bottle, so it’s very likely a handful of vaccines will be wasted unless people step in.

10 doses for Moderna & AZ, 6 for BionTech/Pfizer and 5 for J&J.

Initially, BionTech/Pfizer had it at 5 doses of 0.3ml each even though the thawed bottle apparently contains over 2.1ml of vaccine which means a skilled person can get 7 doses out of it.

Acquired immunity from a bout of COVID likely only lasts maybe 4-8 months, and is likely less effective against new strains than the vaccines are. So that's why you should get a vaccine even if you had COVID already.

Also the more adamant you are about things going back to normal, the more you should want to get a vaccine. We need like 80% of the population to get vaccinated so we can truly, safely, go back to normal.

And that exchange results in public data that allows us to track a spring break surge from Florida partiers how, exactly? Never mind the ones who are asymptomatic and/or mildly symptomatic and don't get tested.

One of the big problems with the situation is that we've had to make a lot of guesses/assumptions about how this thing spreads and how it does not spread, because with case numbers so high you can't accurately/effectively contact trace at scale to draw good conclusions.

Where was/is this flood of reinfections 4-8 months later? Where is the flood of reinfections with a new variant?

Reinfections are rare now even over a year into this. And people infected with SARS-1 ands MERS, both very similar and related corona viruses, show antibodies over a decade later. This does not mean covid natural immunity will be as durable but the data so do bade well.

And where is the science/data that shows vaccinated people are spreading the virus to others causing hospitalization and deaths? Those are the numbers that count, no one cares about case-count anymore, we have therapeutics and a vaccine now. We should start being positive

Don't know if he still is, but he used to be on a player advisory board where they provide input to the WSOP decision makers.

We don't have sufficient data either way. We usually don't know where someone caught it and there's no safe way to run a controlled study. Vaccinated people PROBABLY won't catch and spread it as easily but we don't know if it's a 99% reduction or 20%.

We're still at 1000 deaths per day in the US (7 day average) so in no way are we out of the woods yet.

There have already been thousands of doses wasted in the U.S. because some governors made ironclad rules about who can get it when, and if there was no one that wanted it in some places before their doses expired they just threw it away rather than vaccinate other people that didn't fit the ironclad rules.

But I think somewhere down the line we’re gonna have to figure out if the vaccine works. I thought that’s what the trials were for, guess not.

We know the vaccine dramatically reduces illness and eliminates serious illness/death in the vaccinated. That means it works, don't be obtuse. What we don't know is if the vaccinated can transmit the virus to others.

There's good news on that front. The CDC published a study this week in which the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were shown to reduce PCR-confirmed infections by 90%. That includes both asymptomatic and symptomatic positives. So two weeks after full vaccination there's marked protection not only against contracting symptomatic disease (and hospitalizations and fatalities from them), but also against an asymptomatic infection that could potentially be contagious.

But if a vaccinated person can still spread the virus then it doesn’t work in my mind, it should do both or there’s no reason for a healthy person to take it. I thought that’s what the trials were for. Why would they not test to see if vaccinated person can still spread the virus?

Trials don't give binary results, nor do vaccines. They never work the same way with every person, in every circumstance.

When it comes to whether a vaccinated person can spread the virus to others, saying it can happen doesn't necessarily mean it happens often. IE they may determine it's possible, but not likely. I've certainly not heard any expectation that the vaccines will have no effect on people's ability to spread the virus.

My head is pounding reading your post. Please stop.

Just trying to understand how it works, shouldn’t be a big deal to ask some questions about it. Hoping for a more regular WSOP in fall.