If you had wrote "Vaccination certificate alone is useless for border control." then it would be more clear. We don't know whether you are supportive of vaccination certificates as part of border control toolkit, or simply against relying solely on vaccination certificates alone for border control. If it was more clearly specified, there will be less chance for misinterpretation.
I meant what I said without "alone". I repeat
vaccination certificate is useless to China, the measure of China's border control is
solely PCR + quarantine.
The purpose of border control is to prevent people carrying the virus to get in. A vaccination certificate 6 months ago might mean 80% virus free, two months ago meant maybe 60% virus free, now it means only some 30%. It was never enough
to China's purpose which is zero entrance. For that purpose PCR before and after entrance plus quarantine is always the only way China relies on. China has never given vaccination certificate any value in border control.
Remember even a person vaccinated by Chinese vaccines have to be quarantined upon return as other non-vaccinated or vaccinated with western vaccines. So it does not matter if a person has a vaccination certification or not.
Many (majority) EU countries do not exempt a vaccinated person from PCR test or quarantine within EU borders in the same way as China. See the link included in my post 17557.
You should specify the comparator clearly in the post so it is clear and reduce the chance for misinterpretation. If you don't specify the comparator, then people can rightly or wrongly assume you mean vaccination is counterproductive compared to 'no vaccination' for all we know and you sound like an anti-vaxxer. We can't read your mind magically. Just a polite reminder to be more clear in your posts.
If you read AGAIN you should have seen that
my original post #17,557 was in response to question #17,551 which was about "vaccination recognition between China and France, Germany".
That was clear enough about the premises in discussion and should not have been misinterpreted IMO. You don't expect people to repeat their words in every subsequent posts, do you?
The only way to completely "stop spreading" is to eradicate the virus. If it continues to spread within a localized population, that's by definition "continuing to spread". You need to eradicate the virus to completely "stop spreading".
If they remain in small pockets of the world, that's by definition "Still spreading"? I'm beginning to think English is not your first language. The definition of pandemic is an epidemic that spreads across continents, but if it's still endemic in small regions of the world, it's "Still Spreading" and has not "Stopped spreading". Also, nobody in epidemiology uses "Stop spreading" because it's super vague and open to interpretation.
Ebola did not spread out of Africa because it had a high lethality rate and short incubation period, making identification and quarantine easier. Also, there was no mass vaccination campaign to "Stop the Spread" of Ebola , and Ebola is definitely still spreading amongst the human and animal host reservoir population, and definitely still spreading within Africa. This is a really poor example to choose.
Just a polite reminder to be more clear in your posts to avoid any misunderstanding or miscommunication.
You brought this into the discussion unrelated to the original subject, it is a distraction and a moving goal post, I have no interest in continuing.
