Thank you for the question. The big thing we're looking at is what's happening in Europe right now, where the virus continues to evolve. I think we all agree with that. The pathway for the virus to evolve is more immune evasion. As we have more populations that are immunized and more populations that have been infected, the virus is only going to gain mutations to then evade immunity more and more, which makes proof of vaccination even less prioritized in that context, given that with two doses, three doses or even four doses of vaccination, there will likely be a breakthrough rate that is significant, with a time-limited benefit to vaccinations for preventing infections. They are still important with respect to severe disease, but the use of vaccinations as a way to separate people at high and low risk is likely coming off the table for a significant amount of time.
I would say the use of proof of vaccination to cross the border is not going to be effective in the foreseeable future given the way this virus continues to evolve to be more immune-evasive. Also, random testing is probably not going to be a long-term effective strategy considering that we've done a lot of work in terms of sequencing within our communities to identify variants of concern that have started circulating and that will likely start to circulate locally before we even identify they're a problem internationally. We've done a lot of work with waste water and other modalities that are passive to also integrate those into screening.
Again, the measures, I think, have little left in terms of their benefits, even with variant X or variant Y coming down the pipeline, and I think our focus should be on vaccinating locally, getting appropriate treatments locally and protecting high-risk populations locally, like those in long-term care and those who are immunocompromised, rather than using the border as a tool to mitigate something that can't really be mitigated at the border.