12 ms·
How will the world vaccinate seven billion?
- japgolly 6y agoGradually?
- cafebabbe 6y agoWhy would we need to vaccine absolutely everyone ? isn't herd immunity a thing?
- gibatronic 6y agoStill, it would be a lot of people: 50 to 83% [1], and more importantly, it has to be evenly distributed. It would be pointless to have developed countries safe while the rest of the world is in chaos. We're a global economy after all. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity#Mechanics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity#Mechanics
- kwhitefoot 6y agoNot yet, and it is possible that immunity does not last long enough for herd immunity to ever happen. It's too early to tell.
- nickthemagicman 6y agoThis is false immunity is strong and long-lasting otherwise they wouldn't be sinking billions into a vaccine which operates the same way that infectious immunity operates.
- anon98356 6y agoHerd immunity is a thing, but as I heard one scientist describe it: It's not a question of achieving herd immunity or not, it's a question of how. Mass vaccination also leads to herd immunity, it's achieved by creating immunity in individuals through a vaccine instead of by contracting the virus naturally.
- FriendlyNormie 6y agoYou deserve a bullet between the eyes for even posting this. Get fucked you globalist jew bootlicking faggot. Can’t wait for the green light to start removing you people from the minecraft server. Won’t be long now.
- zaro 6y agoWhy would we need that? I think a lot of people will get immunity the natural way, even now a lot of people are having covid w/o any symptoms at all, and they will have immunity.
- JoeAltmaier 6y agoNot sure this immunity lasts long? So immunizing a herds-worth in a small period (2 weeks? 2 months?) might be a thing.
- nickthemagicman 6y agoThis is false, immunity is strong and long-lasting. The news is trying to sell papers. A vaccine is also an attenuated version of the virus so if becoming immune from the virus doesn't last long it won't last long from a vaccine.
- pietroglyph 6y agoMost of your reply isn’t really correct. > A vaccine is also an attenuated version of the virus so if becoming immune from the virus doesn't last long it won't last long from a vaccine. A vaccine can be an attenuated virus, or a piece of mRNA or DNA, or a distinctive viral protein. Which type of vaccine you use+the adjuvants that go with it can result in very different immune responses and efficacy over time. > This is false, immunity is strong and long-lasting. Immunity to COVID-19 varies a lot person to person and is poorly understood. It does however appear that many people can be reinfected (especially people who had mild symptoms the first time.)
- chrisco255 6y agoThe only reason people are testing positive again after having Covid and healing from it is because the test is very poor at distinguishing between various coronaviruses, the vast majority of which are harmless and sometimes cause the common cold. There is a big false positive rate as a result.
- nickthemagicman 6y agoWe only need to vaccinate high risk people. Under 50 crowd does not need a vaccination.
- scambier 6y agoI'd rather not get sick and risk dying, even if I'm under 50. Thank you very much. And more importantly, even if the risk of death is low for me, I can still transmit it to high risk people.
- nickthemagicman 6y agoI'm not saying you shouldn't have the option... but there's plenty of us that understand how risk works.
- scambier 6y agoAnd there's plenty of us that understand that "low risk" is still risk, that getting sick without dying is not without long-term health effects, and that vaccination is not only for you, but for your community.
- somjeed 6y agoAnd there's also plenty of us that recognize what some are certain is best for the community, may not be. E.g. politicized forced vaccination
- goto11 6y agoWouldn't it be sufficient to vaccinate people in the high-risk groups?
- parasight 6y agoI think you should add people working in the health-care sector.
- dividedbyzero 6y agoAnd all the other people with lots of in-person contact with others, like in retail, restaurants, taxis, etc. And a lot of those who cram into public transportation during rush hour. Otherwise you'll still overwhelm hospitals quickly in another runaway wave of infections.
- kwhitefoot 6y agoThey are a high risk group.
- lez 6y agoIt should be opt-in AND unvaccinated ppl should never face consequences in the future.
- bigbluedots 6y agoThe point of having a vaccine is to stop the spread of the disease. For that to work, we may need to mandate that people are vaccinated, and I am ok with that.
- chrisco255 6y agoNo, sorry. My body. My choice.
- bigbluedots 6y agoNope, not when your choice affects the rest of us.
- bmcn2020 6y agoI tend to agree with the "no mandataroy vaccination" thought. I'm no anti-vaxxer, nor a believer in the "plandemic". But the vaccine should be voluntary and highly recommended for at risk groups. After all, they're the ones who would be impacted the most.
- bkor 6y ago> I'm no anti-vaxxer, nor a believer in the "plandemic". But the vaccine should be voluntary and highly recommended for at risk groups. After all, they're the ones who would be impacted the most. That would not work. The high risk group would then get infected by other people. A vaccine isn't perfect. Similarly for people affected where you did not know beforehand that they would have a bad effect.
- bmcn2020 6y ago
- Nitrolo 6y agoI'm a bit surprised to see so much opposition to vaccination here on HN, I would have thought that this would be a very pro-science and pro-vaccination crowd. As far as my understanding goes, herd immunity is not a real alternative to vaccinations. Herd immunity means that a very large percentage of the population, spread evenly across every community, would have to be infected and recover, another commenter cited a source estimating between 50% and 80%[0]. This means getting basically everybody infected, the reason a vaccine would be necessary is that we don't want everybody to get infected because it carries significant risks to health and life with it. Also the timeframe needed to reach such high percentages of immunity would be very long. Looking at the US, if you assume a continued infection rate of 50 000 new infections each day (much more would probably mean overwhelming hospital capacities) it would take 8 years just to reach the 50% threshold, 13 years to reach 80%. Lot of time and suffering saved by going the vaccine route. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity#Mechanics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity#Mechanics
- NoOneNew 6y agoNot opposed to vaccines. Opposed to rushed, poorly tested, politicized pharmaceuticals. Poorly tested drugs have severe consequences. Just because you WANT a miracle, doesn't mean the first person offering one will actually help.
- cauliflower99 6y agoHear hear!
- Nitrolo 6y agoFair enough, of course any vaccine that does get distributed to billions of people should be tested very, very carefully. Chances are the first option might not be the best one (see the vaccine that's being rolled out in Russia). But the article is talking about the logistics of distributing an effective vaccine, once it's found, not distributing the first best thing someone happens to come up with. It seems pretty likely that at some point a safe and effective vaccine will be found. Should that vaccine not be distributed widely?
- thelastname 6y agoWe don't have the vaccine and don't know if will ever have.