4 ms·

If the vaccines are not very effective in older people then they may not make as much of a difference as you think.

xg15 6y ago
As I understood it, this is where herd immunity comes in. The term got a bad reputation due to some politicians wanting to archive natural herd immunity, i.e. just letting the disease infect everyone - and accepting the resulting death toll. But in the end, herd immunity is what we want to archive - through vaccination, like we do with any other disease. So I believe if enough young, healthy people are vaccinated, so that herd immunity is archived, this will also lower the risk enough for old and vulnerable people so that restrictions can be lifted. Of course what's true is that the virus will likely never die out like SARS did and will stay with us forever in some form. However, it will likely be less deadly (through mutation and our knowledge of treatment) and we can make it less contagious (through vaccination) - so at some point hopefully it can be managed like an "ordinary" disease and not like a natural disaster. But this means the end of the pandemic is less clear-cut than if the virus would simply die out. So scientists and politicians will need to find good criteria for when the pandemic can be declared "over" and restrictions can be safely lifted without them having to backtrack a few months later. What will definitely stay though are changes in psychology and personal outlook and a profoundly shifted overton window. Locking down all if society if a threat demands it is now back in the table of options. However, this doesn't have to be bad it's done in a regulated and democratic fashion.
- thewarrior 6y ago
  That really depends on the vaccine. What you are referring to is sterilizing immunity. Ie you don’t get sick at all and neither can you pass it on. The hopes for this kind of a vaccine aren’t very high.
  - xg15 6y ago
    > The hopes for this kind of a vaccine aren’t very high. Why actually? SARS2 is extremely contagious and it attaches to a receptor which is involved in various vital systems in the human body and can cause a wide range of life-threatening symptoms. This is what makes this virus so dangerous. However, apart from that, it's an "ordinary" coronavirus: It's not a retrovirus like AIDS and does not mutate as fast as rhinoviruses. I've not read any news about serious complications in vaccine development either. So what would make developing a vaccine so particular hard here? > What you are referring to is sterilizing immunity. Why would this be a requirement? The point of herd immunity is that it also works if less than 100% of the population is immune, as long as the probability of transmission is lowered enough to effectively stop the spread. A vaccine that would lower the probability of infection enough seems to be able to archive the same.

xg15 6y ago

As I understood it, this is where herd immunity comes in. The term got a bad reputation due to some politicians wanting to archive natural herd immunity, i.e. just letting the disease infect everyone - and accepting the resulting death toll. But in the end, herd immunity is what we want to archive - through vaccination, like we do with any other disease. So I believe if enough young, healthy people are vaccinated, so that herd immunity is archived, this will also lower the risk enough for old and vulnerable people so that restrictions can be lifted. Of course what's true is that the virus will likely never die out like SARS did and will stay with us forever in some form. However, it will likely be less deadly (through mutation and our knowledge of treatment) and we can make it less contagious (through vaccination) - so at some point hopefully it can be managed like an "ordinary" disease and not like a natural disaster. But this means the end of the pandemic is less clear-cut than if the virus would simply die out. So scientists and politicians will need to find good criteria for when the pandemic can be declared "over" and restrictions can be safely lifted without them having to backtrack a few months later. What will definitely stay though are changes in psychology and personal outlook and a profoundly shifted overton window. Locking down all if society if a threat demands it is now back in the table of options. However, this doesn't have to be bad it's done in a regulated and democratic fashion.

thewarrior 6y ago
That really depends on the vaccine. What you are referring to is sterilizing immunity. Ie you don’t get sick at all and neither can you pass it on. The hopes for this kind of a vaccine aren’t very high.
- xg15 6y ago
  > The hopes for this kind of a vaccine aren’t very high. Why actually? SARS2 is extremely contagious and it attaches to a receptor which is involved in various vital systems in the human body and can cause a wide range of life-threatening symptoms. This is what makes this virus so dangerous. However, apart from that, it's an "ordinary" coronavirus: It's not a retrovirus like AIDS and does not mutate as fast as rhinoviruses. I've not read any news about serious complications in vaccine development either. So what would make developing a vaccine so particular hard here? > What you are referring to is sterilizing immunity. Why would this be a requirement? The point of herd immunity is that it also works if less than 100% of the population is immune, as long as the probability of transmission is lowered enough to effectively stop the spread. A vaccine that would lower the probability of infection enough seems to be able to archive the same.