I'm getting tired of all the anti-vaccine pessimism.
Don't listen to the fearmongering. There may have been a handful of outliers in the world who got reinfected, but there's data showing that immunity seems to last for over six months in 100 out of 100 people tested[1]. There have also been multiple studies showing that some people exposed to the original SARS virus in ~2003 have cross-immunity to COVID. There's also evidence of pre-existing immunity from other coronaviruses[2].
When the vaccine becomes available to you, get vaccinated. In the meantime, wear a mask and keep being careful, but we have legitimate reasons to be hopeful. We have two vaccines showing efficacy, more to come in the following months. There's also a synthetic antibody therapy that just got FDA emergency approval[3]. This is going to save a lot of lives. All of the serious data points to the fact that this is going to make a huge dent in the number of new cases and fatalities.
No one benefits from painting vaccines as invincible magic. We don't want to give the actual crazies any more fuel then we have to. Realism is important for restoring the "credibility of science" after the flailing contradictory guidance we got from official sources early in the pandemic.
95% success is not invincible magic. The 85% success rate for MMR cited downthread is definitely not invincible magic. "Close" is highly debatable. They're still a good idea, but let's use honest arguments.
95% means that if most of the population is vaccinated, the virus will probably disappear. The magic works not by not getting infected, but by not infecting other people.
> 95% means that if most of the population is vaccinated, the virus will probably disappear.
"Most" (>50%) is likely not enough.
Based on estimates of R0 for SARS-CoV-2, if its 95% effective lifelong immunity, then about 63%-75% need to be vaccinated for herd immunity; that number goes up if the protection is shorter-lived:
> 95% means that if most of the population is vaccinated, the virus will probably disappear. The magic works not by not getting infected, but by not infecting other people.
This is a good time to note that AFAIK the Pfizer vaccine will not do a whole lot for preventing spread, so much as preventing an infection from breaking out into the disease (i.e. not all people infected with COV-19 wind up with COVID)
Once your immune system is trained to attack the known pathogen, it should be doing that before the virus is ever able to gain a foothold in your body and spread from you to someone else. People who have been vaccinated will not spread the virus.
Yeah, these claims are FUD. Yes, there are theoretical concerns; as with all new things, there is no complete certainty. But we should be absolutely clear that immunity usually reduces transmission. That that's at least very common is trivially observable in the real world too; no need for fancy statistics: just note that anything we have effective vaccines for has dramatically reduces spread in societies using those vaccines broadly.
Additionally, vaccine transmission reduction worries can be conflated with direct vaccine risk worries. There are risks to untested vaccine candidates, and some can even cause more severe illness. That's why we test, surely? And though I can't find the citation off the top of my head, there are even cases where a vaccine might enhance spread in extremely peculiar circumstances; I found a paper documenting such effect when vaccinating animals vs. an otherwise generally fatal disease; the vaccine simply delayed the inevitable and that delay caused a measurable increase in spread - but that's not at all like covid 19, which is not usually fatal. These theoretical concerns do not appear likely to be a factor this time, and most remaining doubt will clear up once phase 3 trials are complete: in particular, you'll know before you're vaccinated.
Whether the vaccines will reduce spread is obviously we don't know for absolutely sure; but reduced transmission does appear to be the most likely outcome. We should definitely act and plan as if it will (while measuring and hedging to detect if we're wrong). If new data appears that undermines this assumption, then we should adapt - but that's not likely. Much more likely is that the exact details of how much spread is reduced is unknown (so a 90% effective vaccine might reduce spread by less than 90%; or even by more; and we don't know those numbers).
So for example, when a paper like this https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... points out the limitations of currently knowledge, you should interpret that as just that - a limitation of current knowledge, not that it's very likely that a vaccine will leave spread mostly unaffected.
The final nail in the coffin for this FUD is that it's not actionable. Attempts to vaccinate - with the hope of reducing transmission - won't be ill-advised in retrospect in the unlikely event it turns out not to; it still reduces severity safely. So in terms of policy after phase 3 trials are complete and before mass-rollout: who cares? At worst vaccines will reduce disease impact with a good chance to reduce spread too. But if people start thinking the vaccine is likely useless, uptake could drop, which is throwing away such a great chance. This is classic FUD: doubt that's simply undermining rational action, without cause.
this is a really important subject that isn't getting enough air time.
The difference between a vaccine that stops the infection and a vaccine that stops the disease.
The later is definitely not as useful in the early days. because you end up with lots of people operating on a "pre-covid" normal behavior basis when they could be infecting lots of people that are unable to get vaccinated.
The Former is a much better solution. Stop people getting infected, then they can't wander around shedding and spreading.
Wow, that's a huge difference that people talk about, I didn't know that the 2 mRNA vaccines are so different. Actually it means that the title is wrong!
Somebody asked what happens if somebody uses both vaccines, it's a really interesting question, but I think we won't have enough data.
But oh, what a big if! There are still a lot of details and failure modes that need to work out to get the happy ending. That's why we need to set realistic expectations.
I don't think anyone with any amount of scientific background thinks that these first-generation vaccines will eradicate COVID, but IMO the actual data says immunity is likely to be very good and last for 6+ months, probably more. Then, in 2022, we'll get new vaccines that account for new COVID mutations, and we'll make another big dent in the number of cases again.
"Eradicate" is a very strong word. We haven't eradicated measles or diphtheria, either. I think everyone would be pretty happy to get covid-19 down to the same incidence as measles.
I hope we have a better chance of eradicating covid, than we do measles. A first factor making measles harder to eradicate is that it can strikes fairly early in life, and covid appears to affect young children much less and not to be as transmissable either (studies show schools are a source of transmission, but that's largely 15+ yro teenages AFAICT). Transmission in necessarily vaccinated very young children won't be as much of an issue. Secondly, measles is much more infectious. People that come in close contact with contagious measles cases almost always get infected (90%), whereas with covid there are clearly many cases in which people get lucky. Over the course of the cov19 disease it may be likely you'll infect people, but each short exposure by itself is a fairly low risk; unlike with measles. And that helps, because it means that with measles you'd expect to need a much higher degree of vaccination to achieve herd immunity that with a less contagious virus like cov19. Intuitively: when a case does slip through it's much more likely to explode and infect many others when the virus is measles, than when it's cov-19.
Of course, just because it's an easier problem - hopefully - than measles eradication doesn't mean it's achievable. But at least it's plausibly achievable.
(There are warning signs too; like animal reservoirs which are a factor for cov-19 but not measles, so it's not all roses.)
Many topics shouldn’t be political issues, and a vaccine is one of them. Some people have very little information and take absolute positions on things and try to spread their faith, but discussion here isn’t that.
I posted the parent comment and I agree with almost all of what you say here. If you read the thread I linked to, it's overwhelmingly positive ("exceedingly encouraging") and in no way can be characterized as "anti-vax" or fearmongeriing. It makes a specific point about the length of efficacy being unknown with mRNA vaccines, which are a new approach. I think this is worth acknowledging. It's certainly not a reason not to take the vaccine, nor does the thread imply that it is. In the worst case, the vaccine should still have a tremendous positive impact.
Even assuming the estimate of risk given there is correct, and even ignoring the evidence for persistent damage not infrequently arising from non-lethal cases, it’s really odd to me how cavalier people are about that 0.5% risk of death. That’s 1 in 200, so it’s not huge, sure- but if you gave me the choice between running that risk or taking a shot, I know which I would go for. It would even be too high a price for a night out with my friends.
Like, a 1-in-200 chance of losing all the hopes you had for your life and instead dying an agonizing death in some overcrowded ICU, doesn’t sound like it should be treated lightly.
Other than herd immunity (from vaccination or natural incidence) what do you expect will durably protect you from infection? The positivity rate a year ago was zero, in a year's time it's most unlikely to still be 5%.
Some people can't get vaccinated due to health reasons or they don't mount a proper immune response. They need you to do your part to establish herd immunity.
I'm in neither of those populations but I really don't see why any healthy 18-25 year old would want to life a single finger for a 60-80 year old, after the latter left the former with a broken economy, overpriced education system and an unaffordable housing market. I mean, it shouldn't be on the younger (inherently politically weaker) generation to re-establish inter-generational solidarity... (You can see the effects of this even pre-vaccine - youngsters partying while oldsters arguing for lock-downs.)
That confuses generalities with specifics. The 60-80 year old that you infect might be someone who agrees with you and worked very hard to oppose those things.
I suspect the number one reason is that most 18-25 year olds actually love their parents and grandparents, and don't want to see them dying an agonizing death from covid.
Clearly this doesn't apply to everyone, but I reckon it applies to most.
Think about the people who are old, immune compromised, sensitive to something in the vaccine, etc.: vaccines protect them when enough people in the community are vaccinated that the virus cannot spread. You personally may not be at high risk but it’s still non-zero and your decision to get vaccinated will help people who for whatever reason cannot.
I'll be at home in bed, infecting nobody. And yes, I do wear a mask in public. I doubt their efficacy, but's not such an imposition that I will give it the benefit of the doubt. Injecting something of unproven safety into my body is an entirely different matter.
If that were possible, the flu would be eradicated already. You only develop symptoms for most transmissible respiratory infections after you've already been contagious for a day or so.
Maybe, if you're unlucky. In all likelihood, you'll be asymptomatic and spreading it to a bunch of other people without realizing it (which is most of the reason we're in this mess). Then those people do the same, get sick, and/or die.
You'd have probably infected people, including high-risk people, before you experienced symptoms. If you're vaccinated, you ~won't be infecting people.
Don't listen to the fearmongering. There may have been a handful of outliers in the world who got reinfected, but there's data showing that immunity seems to last for over six months in 100 out of 100 people tested[1]. There have also been multiple studies showing that some people exposed to the original SARS virus in ~2003 have cross-immunity to COVID. There's also evidence of pre-existing immunity from other coronaviruses[2].
When the vaccine becomes available to you, get vaccinated. In the meantime, wear a mask and keep being careful, but we have legitimate reasons to be hopeful. We have two vaccines showing efficacy, more to come in the following months. There's also a synthetic antibody therapy that just got FDA emergency approval[3]. This is going to save a lot of lives. All of the serious data points to the fact that this is going to make a huge dent in the number of new cases and fatalities.
[1] https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.01.362319v1
[2] https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/11/05/scie...
[3] https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavi...