[burundi_coffee]

No. The federal council has stated in multiple press conferences that the 6 month period is solely because we only have good data about vaccine protection for this time period. Studies are still ongoing and if it turns out the vaccine protects people well after this period, it will be adjusted. The 6 monthsbare just preliminary.

[endgame]

Pardon my French, but that's a completely ass-backwards approach from the council. If we later find that the vaccines need boosters, so be it, maybe that's justification for an additional restriction. There's an argument against this (of the "give them an inch and they'll take a mile" variety[1]), but what's proposed is taking a mile and promising to maybe sometime walk some of it back at some point. How far? In response to whose data? The ongoing debate around the "lab leak" hypothesis should have you asking questions about how information is collected and decisions made, _particularly_ at the science/public policy boundary.

[1]: https://thezvi.wordpress.com/2021/04/09/covid-4-9-another-va... - Scroll down to/Ctrl-F for: "Or, you could raise the more generalized version of this objection. Also from the comments:"

[mmmmmbop]

In Swiss culture, dependability is valued a lot. People prefer to know for sure that they are guaranteed to be exempt from quarantine restrictions for at least six months (which may be extended indefinitely down the road), over the alternative of assuring indefinite immunity right away and then curtailing that in case the vaccines do not offer long-term protection.

It gives people a certain peace of mind and allows them to make travel plans with confidence.