Question for you - If you put this article in front of a doctor - an ER doctor, a cardiologist, for fun Allison Arwady who works for Pritzker and had a **** eating grin on her face last night as she was giddy about not being able to disclose the vaccine passport the city of chicago is developing to "allow people to participate in events this summer as a way to 'encourage' them to get vaccinated"

She reads this...what possible response could she or the ER doctor or someone educated in science and/or medicine say to refute what you have theorized? How could they interpret the Nature paper differently?

In other words, I read it, I read your analysis, it makes sense to me the non-scientist/non-medical professional. How can they come to a different conclusion?

To your point, if there limited other conclusions to this paper what might they be and if there is not another conclusion you are correct, anything short of stopping is criminal. I'd like to see that **** eating grin slowly go the other way when she realizes (if she didn't already) she is putting people at risk rather than helping them get exclusive access to Lollapalooza.