Not aware of evidence that vaccination stops or reduces spread. Given that asymptomatic and presymptomatic people are the main spreaders, it's certainly not a given.
Vaccinating front line health and care workers does make sense for two reasons
1) Far more likely to catch it
2) Far more problematic if they catch it and are off ill because of it
Other front line workers like police probably less important -- less likely to catch it, and not as problematic if large numbers are off ill as the people who fix it. Saving lives and reducing load on hospitals by vaccinating the over 70s is likely more beneficial.
There's a 3rd reason. Healthcare workers are frequently working directly with high risk people.
An asymptomatic infection of a healthcare worker could lead to a typhoid mary situation. Especially if they are in the right area of interaction (geriatric care, oncology).
Firstly healthcare workers should be being tested on a very frequent basis to catch for asymptomatic cases (as well as tons of PPE), secondly there's no evidence the vaccine will stop that type of transmission.
> Firstly healthcare workers should be being tested on a very frequent basis to catch for asymptomatic cases.
Agreed. It's a good idea even if they have been vaccinated until community spread is way down.
> secondly there's no evidence the vaccine will stop that type of transmission.
Why do you say that? The vaccine should trigger a strong immune response which should keep most people from getting infected. That's my assumption anyways.
Seems like the multi-prong approach here is the most helpful anyways. Vaccine + testing + masks to eliminate spread as much as possible in vulnerable communities.
Professor Chris Whitty, England’s chief medical officer, recently told a press conference that true herd immunity will only occur if we have vaccines that can reduce transmission between people. At the moment, we don’t know if they do.
But the World Health Organisation says even though vaccines have been created.. none of those will necessarily stop the spread of the virus, rather - only stop the virus from becoming a serious disease inside our bodies.
"They do not show that they prevent you from potentially carrying this virus transiently and infecting others," Moderna Chief Medical Officer Tal Zaks told Axios, adding the public should not “over-interpret the results” of the vaccine yet.
I'd defer to Moderna's CMO, Englands CMO, and the WHO, but it does make sense -- after all the vaccine helps you fight the virus, but it seems people are spreaders before they even have symptoms (which I believe is a sign of the body engaging it)
Aiming a vaccination program at spreaders rather than those most likely to suffer seems a risky move.
There is no evidence the sun will rise tomorrow either.
But it is still rational to use logic and experience and assume that sunrise will probably happen as usual tomorrow, and these vaccines probably behave like other vaccines.
I think the near eradication of multiple devastating diseases like polio, smallpox, and the measles is evidence that vaccination works and reduces spread.
> Not aware of evidence that vaccination stops or reduces spread.
There isn't any evidence for the opposite, either. There is no evidence either way. You can't just choose between two unknown options based on which one you like, and then defend your position by saying that there is no evidence against it.
Vaccinating front line health and care workers does make sense for two reasons
1) Far more likely to catch it
2) Far more problematic if they catch it and are off ill because of it
Other front line workers like police probably less important -- less likely to catch it, and not as problematic if large numbers are off ill as the people who fix it. Saving lives and reducing load on hospitals by vaccinating the over 70s is likely more beneficial.