I wouldn't read too much into my delay in responding. I have you on ignore. I click on your posts every now and again to see if it's worth changing that setting, only to have it reconfirmed time and time again.
I have to confess, I don't know what point you think you are making here. The Harvard Gazette reported the results of a study, originally published in Cell. This happens a lot--the results of scientific studies are often published by non-scientific journals. Anyway, the Harvard Gazette article contains a "hyperlink" to the Cell article. You know what a "hyperlink" is, yes? If you "click" on it with your "mouse," it will take you to Cell's "webpage," where you can read the study yourself. Try it out!
Among other things, the study says this: "Remarkably, we found that all three primary vaccine series resulted in low-to-absent neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron . . . . Together, our results highlight that the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant evades vaccine-induced neutralizing immunity under current vaccine regimens . . . . " That's a pretty noteworthy conclusion, and that's part of what the Harvard Gazette article focused on in its article reporting on the study.
I posted in this thread to begin with because someone claimed that "vaccinated" people were getting Omicron at a lower rate than unvaccinated. The study suggests that is wrong, that the current vaccination regime alone doesn't offer protection against Omicron infection, and that only vaccinated
and boosted people are getting Omicron at a lower rate. My point is simply that if we are going to "listen to the science," then we need to make sure we have the science right before we start considering policy implications that follow.
If, in fact, it is true that vaccination according to our current regimen alone doesn't help against Omicron, and, if, in fact, it is true that Omicron is the vastly dominant variant (I've seen some reports of studies that say it's as high as 95% (
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/588164-cdc-omicron-now-95-percent-of-new-us-covid-19-cases), though I don't know if that's the consensus), then mandating vaccination without also mandating the booster is largely security theater. The same is true for the studies suggesting that cloth masks are "little more than facial decorations" against Omicron.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/24/health/cloth-mask-omicron-variant-wellness/index.html. If cloth masks are largely ineffective, then mandating "masks" without specifying the type, is largely security theater.
If those studies are correct, not only is Wake requiring vaccination and masking for basketball games pointless, it may actually be counterproductive because the increased number of people who show up thinking they are safe because of the restrictions put in place would just end up resulting in more infections than if no restrictions had been put in place and those additional people had stayed home. Wake is just trying to sell tickets, after all.
In any event, the observation that we should be sure we have the science right before we start listening to it seems like a pretty obvious one, and I can't fathom what would be objectionable about it, at least for people who are interested in discussing the topic in good faith. Regrettably, those people appear to be in short supply.
Best wishes in your future endeavors.