COVID-19 Coronavirus Containment Efforts

[mfb]

I go to the local Joe's bar with Tom (a person I know and trust) and see fully vaccinated Tom without a mask laughing and talking to fully vaccinated Sally without a mask with little or no risk to COVID-19 but I'm not vaccinated. Sure, I could lie or fake a card but there is a peer based incentive to actually get fully vaccinated for my personal safety.

That's the second positive incentive I mentioned in my earlier post. Such a situation cannot happen without a rule "if you are vaccinated you can remove your mask in some places".

You mentioned politics and the four states. I think people have been too quick to go there. It is true that these states are blue. Ranked #2, #3, #9 and #17. But it's a mistake to think of New England as homogeneous. You get out of eyeshot of water in Maine and it gets very rural, very poor and very red very fast. Even Massachusetts is relatively red between Worcester and Springfield.

It's not just four states. It's an obvious correlation across all of them. It also holds on the county level within states. Correlation does not mean causation, but it's a notable pattern.

 

[nsaspook]

That's the second positive incentive I mentioned in my earlier post. Such a situation cannot happen without a rule "if you are vaccinated you can remove your mask in some places".

That's exactly my point, we need to increase the chances of that happening even if it means some small percentage of cheating. We are long past worrying about the level of mask wearing, mask cheating and mask virtue signaling at this stage if we can increase vaccinations because cheating is very unlikely to cause a uptick in serious COVID-19 cases due to vaccinations being so much more effective than masks.

Restriction elimination is linked directly to the vaccination percentage metric in most states because cases have been dropping at a rate that has eliminated most case based metrics to the point that Portland Oregon (in Multnomah County) is due to be in the lowest state risk category this week.

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/he...y-26/283-ee2dba6e-5cec-479b-bc3d-2c1f881e8928

The other requirement to move to lower risk is that at least 65% of a county's residents 16 or older must have received a first dose of the vaccine. Multnomah County reached that target last week. On Friday, five Oregon counties — Benton, Deschutes, Hood River, Lincoln and Washington — moved to the lower risk level.

Having submitted its vaccine equity plan, the county will now be eligible to move to lower risk on Friday, May 28, which will allow the county to significantly reduce its COVID-19 restrictions. The lower risk level allows a maximum of 50% capacity indoors at restaurants, theaters, gyms and other indoor entertainment spaces. It also expands retail store capacity to 75%.

 

[russ_watters]

Well, it lasts until the pandemic wanes.

No, they just have until the pandemic wanes to reverse the hypocrisy. After that it isn't an option anymore.

(For making legal, and possibly even rational, choices that you and I did not)

It's definitely legal, maybe rational, but usually selfish. Most of the pandemic mitigation efforts have been that way. Vaccines, masks, Thanksgiving dinners, protests, personal information sharing...heck, even toilet paper. Much of the story of the pandemic has been the push-pull between making choices that are viewed as best for ones-self vs what is best for society -- and governments' attempts to shape that.

Maybe a better question is "how much vaccination do we need?"

Yes, and to be fair the question may already be moot. The 70% threshold is mythical and doesn't include those who have already been infected and are carrying some immunity. Seeing how fast the infection numbers are dropping right now tells me we may already be at the threshold, whatever it is. But still...

I estimate the number of adults who refuse vaccination to be 10%. We know that 85% of 65+ people (who were first in the queue) have received at least one dose, so presumably intend to receive the other (and 87% of them have done so). This is a lower bound, as this group contains a higher fraction of those who shouldn't be vaccinated.

To me, the elderly represent an upper bound -- or maybe both at the same time because they are simultaneously the group with the most who shouldn't be vaccinated (<10%?) and the most who should (everyone else). And they are the group with the easiest access the vaccine. For those frail enough to live in congregate care but not frail enough that vaccination itself presents a high risk, the vaccine was literally delivered to their kitchen table. For such people, there wasn't even an opportunity to be ambivalent about the vaccine, it was a binary choice; get it or don't, right now.

The "should I get a vaccine" calculus is entirely different for a 20 year old than for a 75 year old. For the rest of the population, the choice is not binary. The options include:

• Yes, immediately.
• Yes, when I have time.
• Maybe, if it is made easy enough for me.
• Maybe, eventually, if it is made easy enough for me.
• I don't know = not right now and maybe never
• No, never.

We also have four states with >90% vaccination and seven more close to it. So we will end up with:

Others have pointed out the political association, but New England is also very white. This isn't just a political issue, it is a demographics issue; vaccine hesitancy is high among blacks and Hispanics as well. And that's definitely not related to rural living, as those groups are concentrated in cities.

I'm arguing that we should spend less effort of punishment and "prevenge" and instead use that effort in places where it would do more good, even if less emotionally satisfying.

We're just talking here. I don't see policies in action to actually punish the hesitant/refusers. Really, I see the policy change as letting them off the hook. Maybe the CDC was hoping it would provide an incentive to get vaccinated, but for the refusers I don't think it does.

But I see at least two other reasons. One is that these states are very rural. (Rank #4, 9 and Georgia is #28 with one large city), and we previously discussed the challenges rural areas face.

Well...you speculated about the challenges rural areas might face. If such challenges did exist and were a significant factor behind the sharp drop in new vaccinations, I'd think it would be demonstrable and all over the news. While I know we're all speculating here, I think it's unlikely to be a significant issue. There's 14,000 McDonalds in the US and 40,000 chain pharmacies (not sure if Walmart is counted in that number), plus doctors' offices and hospitals. One would need to be really, really rural to lack easy access to a vaccine and I can't see that there would be enough such people to affect the uptake statistics.

The minimum order is ~1200 doses, which may be an issue in rural areas.

That's for Pfizer. The minimum Moderna order is 100. I didn't check J&J because who wants a J&J vaccine.

Just for the heck of it, I went looking for a random small town in Alabama, and stumbled on Russellville (pop: 10,000), my new favorite place:
https://www.google.com/maps/search/pharmacy/@34.5070437,-87.7453479,14z
It has four pharmacies in town with COVID vaccines.

 

[atyy]

We're just talking here. I don't see policies in action to actually punish the hesitant/refusers. Really, I see the policy change as letting them off the hook. Maybe the CDC was hoping it would provide an incentive to get vaccinated, but for the refusers I don't think it does.

Unmasking may not let them off the hook, because with viral mutations, herd immunity becomes less likely, even with 100% vaccination. So if the vaccine is mainly to prevent severe disease, then those who aren't vaccinated will have higher sickness and death rates (until we reach herd immunity against the variants). Of course, the policy is probably not out to get them, it's just that there may be a practical limit to how much some people can be persuaded. Then the policy would be to try to live with their views, as long as the higher rates among unvaccinated don't take up so much resources that others cannot get good care. The people who are punished are those who would like to be vaccinated, but cannot for one reason or other.

 

[russ_watters]

Unmasking may not let them off the hook, because with viral mutations, herd immunity becomes less likely, even with 100% vaccination. So if the vaccine is mainly to prevent severe disease, then those who aren't vaccinated will have higher sickness and death rates (until we reach herd immunity against the variants). Of course, the policy is probably not out to get them, it's just that there may be a practical limit to how much some people can be persuaded. Then the policy would be to try to live with their views, as long as the higher rates among unvaccinated don't take up so much resources that others cannot get good care. The people who are punished are those who would like to be vaccinated, but cannot for one reason or other.

I agree with pretty much all of that. I'm going to continue wearing a mask indoors in many circumstances for a little while at least (even though officially "fully vaccinated" today), because of a combination of concerns, which you pretty much list. Where the rubber meets the road, what government policy should be focused on is minimizing overall deaths/serious illnesses and what I am personally concerned with is minimizing risk while balancing against freedom*. Or from the other direction; wearing a mask to the supermarket means nothing to me personally, so there is no reason not to keep doing it. The more vigilant we are, the faster the disease numbers drop and the safer it is for all of us.

*Like V50 I don't like government gamesmanship (even if we set aside the politicizing). I think it is counter-productive/ineffective, especially in this case. The people the government is trying to game are the ones already primed to distrust government and detect/reject the gamesmanship. Oh -- and unethical/corrupt too. Yeah, there's that.

 

[atyy]

*Like V50 I don't like government gamesmanship (even if we set aside the politicizing). I think it is counter-productive/ineffective, especially in this case. The people the government is trying to game are the ones already primed to distrust government and detect/reject the gamesmanship. Oh -- and unethical/corrupt too. Yeah, there's that.

Maybe there's no gamesmanship - this is the endgame. Let's say there are no anti-vaxxers, then the endgame could still be all vaccinated can be unmasked, while those who are not vaccinated (for medical reasons) should remain masked to protect themselves (here I'm assuming the vaccinated might be asymptomatic carriers). Of course these same people should also be careful when they interact with their vaccinated relatives (since they can be asymptomatic carriers).

 

[morrobay]

Covid vaccine compulsory in this Thai province.https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/2115995/buri-ram-makes-covid-vaccinations-compulsory

 

[morrobay]

https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/2115995/buri-ram-makes-covid-vaccinations-compulsory Vaccines compulsory in this Thai province

 

[russ_watters]

Maybe there's no gamesmanship - this is the endgame. Let's say there are no anti-vaxxers, then the endgame could still be all vaccinated can be unmasked, while those who are not vaccinated (for medical reasons) should remain masked to protect themselves (here I'm assuming the vaccinated might be asymptomatic carriers). Of course these same people should also be careful when they interact with their vaccinated relatives (since they can be asymptomatic carriers).

If everyone were vaccine urgent-ers, we would not have seen the drastic drop-off in the vaccination rate over the past few weeks. People would still be lined-up around the block to get their first dose (actually, by now we'd be starting to run out of people eligible/able if that were the case).

But more to the point, we know there's gamesmanship. There has been from the beginning, and it hasn't been unique to a political persuasion - the original 'masks don't help' position is an example. Governments are trying to coerce the actions they want to see, for the benefits they are trying to produce. Even today, democratic governments think it is ok to lie if they have the best interests of their people at heart. That position/reality should terrify us. It's exactly the opposite of what democratic governments are supposed to be about.

 

[atyy]

If everyone were vaccine urgent-ers, we would not have seen the drastic drop-off in the vaccination rate over the past few weeks. People would still be lined-up around the block to get their first dose (actually, by now we'd be starting to run out of people eligible/able if that were the case).

What I mean is that the reasonable endgame may be the same regardless of how enthusiastic people are to get vaccinated. If so, the question is whether now is too early to be playing the endgame.

 

[atyy]

But more to the point, we know there's gamesmanship. There has been from the beginning, and it hasn't been unique to a political persuasion - the original 'masks don't help' position is an example. Governments are trying to coerce the actions they want to see, for the benefits they are trying to produce. Even today, democratic governments think it is ok to lie if they have the best interests of their people at heart. That position/reality should terrify us. It's exactly the opposite of what democratic governments are supposed to be about.

Well, at least that has hopefully taught policy-makers that lying is counterproductive (in most cases, maybe there are exceptions for spies or witness protection programs?).

 

[Rive]

Even today, democratic governments think it is ok to lie if they have the best interests of their people at heart. That position/reality should terrify us. It's exactly the opposite of what democratic governments are supposed to be about.

What really terrifies me is that they just found sufficient support from the scientific community for those claims.
Scientists are even less supposed to lie, especially about science.

 

[Vanadium 50]

It's an obvious correlation across all of them.

Who needs science when you have "obvious"? Isn't it obvious that heavy objects fall faster than light objects?

1. The NYT has a particular political slant. (Remember "Georgia's Experiment in Human Sacrifice", even though the ratio of Covid deaths to all deaths in Georgia is a few percent below the national average)

2. In their figure "vaccine hesitancy" is an estimate. They were perfectly free to pick any estimate - or for that matter, definition - that they wanted.

3, Sure vaccination rates are correlated with politics. Vaccination rates are correlated with urbanization, and urbanization is correlated with politics. We have already discussed some of the challenges faced by rural areas. To then conclude that it's politics that drives this, in spite of all that, without any evidence because it's "obvious" may be many things, but it is not science.

One could of course get evidence - a PCA of 3000 counties would tell you the relative weights of political affiliation and urbanization. Wonder why nobody has done one.

 

[Vanadium 50]

People would still be lined-up around the block to get their first dose

That's pretty much where we are here. Five days ago I saw a walk-in turned away. At that time, you had to wait until early June for your turn. The only signs of slowing I see is that in the last five days the date of first dose availability has only slid back maybe 3 days.

It's also worth pointing out that keeping the vaccination rate constant requires a doubling of production and distribution compared to what it was 28 (or 21) days ago. Thus far, that seems to be happening (at least locally), but if it plateaus, Dose 1 rates will have to drop to accommodate Dose 2. That's just unitarity.

PS I am not arguing we will never see a point where vaccine reluctance dominates. I'm saying that I am not seeing evidence we have reached this point.

Even today, democratic governments think it is ok to lie if they have the best interests of their people at heart.

Well, if you let the rabble make their own informed decisions, sometimes they decide wrongly. Sometimes they even vote wrongly.

 

[Dale]

To everyone, can we please reign in the political discussion as much as possible and focus on the science to the extent possible. I am not asking for complete de-politicization, but let's reduce it to the extent possible.

 

[russ_watters]

2. In their figure "vaccine hesitancy" is an estimate. They were perfectly free to pick any estimate - or for that matter, definition - that they wanted.

3, Sure vaccination rates are correlated with politics. Vaccination rates are correlated with urbanization, and urbanization is correlated with politics. We have already discussed some of the challenges faced by rural areas. To then conclude that it's politics that drives this, in spite of all that, without any evidence because it's "obvious" may be many things, but it is not science.

I share your skepticism of correlation = causation assumptions and statistics with difficult to define "estimated" values, but here we do have something more concrete: survey data where people are directly asked their position/intentions. One was linked in the article:
https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/documents/monmouthpoll_us_041421.pdf/

The question was (last page):
"6. Have you received at least one dose of Covid vaccine, or not? Do you plan to get the Covid vaccine as soon as you are allowed, will you let other people get it first to see how it goes, or is it likely you will never get the vaccine if you can avoid it?"

The options are:
-Already received
-As soon as allowed
-See how it goes
-Likely will never get
-[VOL] Dont know

The differences by political affiliation are stark, and I believe people are telling the truth here about what they have done and their intentions. But it is 6 weeks old so may be out of date.

Note: while the political connection on this topic is obvious, I don't see a need to make the discussion itself political. The reason I think it matters is I think it informs to what the vaccination rate tops out at. Determining if what we are seeing now is a distribution problem or a hesitancy problem is key to that. I'm more interested in the geography than the political leanings of the people. Age too.

It's also worth pointing out that keeping the vaccination rate constant requires a doubling of production and distribution compared to what it was 28 (or 21) days ago. Thus far, that seems to be happening (at least locally), but if it plateaus, Dose 1 rates will have to drop to accommodate Dose 2. That's just unitarity.

No, we're way past that (nationally anyway). The rates aren't constant, they are decreasing. Not constant-decreasing, actually decreasing-decreasing. First vaccinations are down. Second vaccinations are down. Total vaccinations are down. A lot:

• First Dose (Peak 4/1): 1.7 M/day --> 0.6 M/day
• Second Dose (Peak 4/22): 1.5 M/day --> 1.0 M/day
• Total Administered (Peak: 4/11): 3.3 M/day --> 1.7 M/day

(second numbers are a week ago's rates, all are prior week's average. J&J counts toward the total but is less than 100k/day)

Also, you've provided some anecdotes about your locale, but do you have an statistics? These anecdotes are thin at best.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Thanks for posting the Monmouth study. I agree, having created it six weeks ago, in the midst of the J&J scare, probably matters. But it opens up some very interesting questions:

(1) Whites and non-whites answered "likely never get" about the same rate (22% vs 20%). However, non-white vaccination rates are 3/4 that of the average. Why is that?

(2) Having children in the home makes one more likely to say "likely never get" rather than less. (28% vs. 19%) Why is that?

 

[BillTre]

(1) Whites and non-whites answered "likely never get" about the same rate (22% vs 20%). However, non-white vaccination rates are 3/4 that of the average. Why is that?

I am guessing it could be access to the vaccine (not all social groups have equal access),
or perhaps a difference in the amount of difficulty in getting to vaccination locations.
As demand for vaccines go down overall, vaccine availability would be expected to improve in areas that were initially vaccine limited.

(2) Having children in the home makes one more likely to say "likely never get" rather than less. (28% vs. 19%) Why is that?

Possibly, some feel they are too busy taking care of the kids to do that extra stuff.

 

[russ_watters]

Thanks for posting the Monmouth study. I agree, having created it six weeks ago, in the midst of the J&J scare, probably matters. But it opens up some very interesting questions:

(1) Whites and non-whites answered "likely never get" about the same rate (22% vs 20%). However, non-white vaccination rates are 3/4 that of the average. Why is that?

A couple of speculations:
At time of the study, urgency and access mattered more than today. The middle choices had higher answers for minorities too, potentially indicating some ambivalence leading to people not shoving their way to the head of the line. Similarly, if you are in a white-collar job using a computer all day, it is a lot easier to check some background browser tabs periodically for appointments than for a warehouse, factory worker, food service, etc to do the same.

(2) Having children in the home makes one more likely to say "likely never get" rather than less. (28% vs. 19%) Why is that?

Age. Almost nobody 65+ has children at home and they are the lowest "likely never get" respondents. Parents with kids at home (20s to 50s?) are near the sweet spot for that stat based on age (35-54; 32%).
[edit] or is that the tail wagging the dog? Why aren't kids/young adults less likely to get it based on risk?

 

[Jarvis323]

I would expect correlations between vaccine skepticism/fears and answering phone calls by unknown numbers and then subsequently agreeing to participate in the polls.

 

[nsaspook]

https://medicine.wustl.edu/news/good-news-mild-covid-19-induces-lasting-antibody-protection/

The findings, published May 24 in the journal Nature, suggest that mild cases of COVID-19 leave those infected with lasting antibody protection and that repeated bouts of illness are likely to be uncommon.

“Last fall, there were reports that antibodies wane quickly after infection with the virus that causes COVID-19, and mainstream media interpreted that to mean that immunity was not long-lived,” said senior author Ali Ellebedy, PhD, an associate professor of pathology & immunology, of medicine and of molecular microbiology. “But that’s a misinterpretation of the data. It’s normal for antibody levels to go down after acute infection, but they don’t go down to zero; they plateau. Here, we found antibody-producing cells in people 11 months after first symptoms. These cells will live and produce antibodies for the rest of people’s lives. That’s strong evidence for long-lasting immunity.”

 

[AlexCaledin]

- or maybe that's evidence of some permanent virus presence?

 

[Rive]

- or maybe that's evidence of some permanent virus presence?

Kind of, I think. Maybe.
In this context 'immunity' is misleading. The latest developments may suggest that with time Covid really can become something like a cold: not through mutations 'pacifying' it (as it was often brought up at the beginning of the pandemic) , but through a fast response of a trained immune system stopping it becoming serious.
So it's not he classic 'immunity 'one would expect.

 

[morrobay]

Kind of, I think. Maybe.
In this context 'immunity' is misleading. The latest developments may suggest that with time Covid really can become something like a cold: not through mutations 'pacifying' it (as it was often brought up at the beginning of the pandemic) , but through a fast response of a trained immune system stopping it becoming serious.
So it's not he classic 'immunity 'one would expect.

Natural cellular T cell defense is underated:https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/what-...n-why-immunity-is-about-more-than-antibodies/. A high proportion of CD8+Tcell responses was observed in patients who only developed mild disease. Another study has shown that 93% of exposed asymptomatic individuals* had T cell response to CoV-2. *Relatives of confirmed cases. Also potential for cross reactive Tcell recognition between circulating common cold coronaviruses and CoV-2 was shown. So this may explain the differences in individual exposures/infections.

 

[atyy]

https://medicine.wustl.edu/news/good-news-mild-covid-19-induces-lasting-antibody-protection/

This is likely to change as new viral variants evolve. However, while reinfections will become increasingly common, the immunity from the first infection will probably still protect against severe disease.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I am guessing it could be access to the vaccine (not all social groups have equal access),
or perhaps a difference in the amount of difficulty in getting to vaccination locations.

I agree. And doesn't it make more sense to devote resources to vaccinating people who want it rather than on convincing/coercing/punishing those who don't?

 

[bhobba]

I agree. And doesn't it make more sense to devote resources to vaccinating people who want it rather than on convincing/coercing/punishing those who don't?

Certainly, until all the people that want it are vaccinated. If that is good enough, then it can be left at that. If not, then society will need to decide what to do. My suggestion is simply for them to have a chat with a doctor. Beyond that is something I am not comfortable with and will need to see how it plays out.

Thanks
Bill

 

[PeroK]

Certainly, until all the people that want it are vaccinated. If that is good enough, then it can be left at that. If not, then society will need to decide what to do. My suggestion is simply for them to have a chat with a doctor. Beyond that is something I am not comfortable with and will need to see how it plays out.

Thanks
Bill

What if the doctors don't want to see anyone who isn't vaccinated?

 

[bhobba]

What if the doctors don't want to see anyone who isn't vaccinated?

Here in Aus, they are only starting mass vaccination centres now. At the moment, nearly everyone does what I did. I went to my doctor, who explained the risk vs reward. I already knew the issues, except one. The pill has a 1 in 1000 chance of causing a thrombosis, 3% of which are fatal or 30 in a million chance of dying. Of course, being a man it was not an issue, but still interesting. You can go to a vaccination centre or a doctor (for free). As my doctor explained, it was a standard speil they were required to explain to everyone. So doctors are seeing tons of unvaccinated people right now. Nothing would happen that is different. Once the risk vs reward is explained, the patient makes the decision. All I am saying is, once all the people that want vaccination are finished, those hesitant are asked to speak to a doctor. I am uncomfortable with forcing them, but we will have to see how this plays out. Voluntary compliance is always preferable.

Added Later:
Forgot to mention the pill risk is using it for a year.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

My point was that you are happy forcing medical staff to see unvaccinated patients! They may object - you never know!

I am not happy with forcing anyone to do anything in general. Of course, there are times where it is necessary. I am not happy with forcing doctors to see unvaccinated patients. But in practice, I have not heard of it being an issue. Certainly, none of the doctors at my clinic has any issues.

Thanks
Bill

 

[PeroK]

I am not happy with forcing anyone to do anything in general. Of course, there are times where it is necessary. I am not happy with forcing doctors to see unvaccinated patients. But in practice, I have not heard of it being an issue. Certainly, none of the doctors at my clinic has any issues.

Thanks
Bill

I deleted that post. There is too much uncertainty to have a meaningful debate. Not to mention that Australia and the UK have had very different experiences of COVID.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

I agree. And doesn't it make more sense to devote resources to vaccinating people who want it rather than on convincing/coercing/punishing those who don't?

These efforts are not mutually exclusive.

 

[russ_watters]

I agree. And doesn't it make more sense to devote resources to vaccinating people who want it rather than on convincing/coercing/punishing those who don't?

Well, we're just talking/predicting here. As far as I can tell there has only been a little bit of convincing (TV ads, freebies, the dumb new mask policy) and no coercing or punishing. Some businesses may mandate vaccination (Penn Medicine has announced they will) and maybe some schools, but if the infection numbers keep falling and/or we hit the mythical 70% goal, we'll probably drop the whole thing. Mobile clinics are a good idea. Gift cards and lottery tickets too. Since schools/colleges are starting to let out just as kids become eligible, offering the vaccine for them at school in the fall would be good.

We've had a bump-up in cases due to expanded eligibility for kids, but If the rate settles out at 0.5 million per day (each), where first doses were two weeks ago, we're looking at end of August to reach 70%.

 

[StevieTNZ]

Victoria, Australia, is going into another seven day lockdown to stop the spreading of Covid-19 after it has re-emerged in the community:

The number of positive COVID-19 case numbers in Melbourne continues to rise and was at 34 at 1pm (NZ time) according to Health Victoria.
...
The cases in the Melbourne cluster have the B1.617 variant, which was first identified in India. This variant was previously described by Kiwi academics as "worrying" as it includes two mutations. These escape mutations have the ability to slip past the body's immune defences.

-- https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/he...lian-state-of-victoria-to-enter-7day-lockdown

I see now Biden has ordered an intelligence report into the lab leaking of Covid-19 from China.
-- https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/ameri...new-us-report-on-virus-origins-within-90-days

 

[nsaspook]

More fully vaccinated guidance from Oregon. Who will want to be in the Leper colony?

https://www.kptv.com/news/confusion-concern-consequences-surround-oregon-option-for-separating-vaccinated-from-unvaccinated/article_a9f2eec6-be98-11eb-a826-e766856e66c6.html

It’s an option to create separate sections for those who are vaccinated and those who aren’t. The idea is that unvaccinated people would be required to be socially distant and masked, while vaccinated individuals would be free to gather closely without their masks.

“We will see an effect of really separating people,” said Aimee Huff, an assistant professor of marketing at the College of Business at Oregon State University, during an interview Wednesday.
...
The latest shift in Oregon rules is again leaving people and businesses with mixed feelings, confusion and uncertainty about ramifications.

“What we expect to see, is that some segments of shoppers will intentionally seek out businesses whose vaccine policies align with their own individual preferences around the vaccine and political ideologies,” Huff said.