4 ms·

Sure, there may be 53M infections, but how many of those untested positives will go on to get a vaccine? This will actually hinder herd immunity, wasting limite

Sure, there may be 53M infections, but how many of those untested positives will go on to get a vaccine? This will actually hinder herd immunity, wasting limited vaccines.

mlyle 6y ago
> Sure, there may be 53M infections, but how many of those untested positives will go on to get a vaccine? This will actually hinder herd immunity, wasting limited vaccines. Oh, ideally you wouldn't vaccinate people who are already immune, but saying it hinders herd immunity is a bit silly. I find it's always helpful to do thought experiments at the limit. Do you think reaching herd immunity requires more doses A) in a population that is 99% of the way to herd immunity, but that 25% of doses will be wasted because they'll be given to people who are already immune, or B) in a population that is 1% of the way to herd immunity, but only 4% of doses will be wasted in this way?
- FlyMoreRockets 6y ago
  > Oh, ideally you wouldn't vaccinate people who are already immune, but saying it hinders herd immunity is a bit silly. If you only have 100M doses and you waste half on undetected positives, that definitely hinders achieving herd immunity. Unless you are saying uncontrolled spread helps develop herd immunity. It does, but it isn't a desirable method.
  - mlyle 6y ago
    > but it isn't a desirable method. Nobody said it was a desirable method. But I did assert that past infections does reduce the doses you need to give to reach herd immunity, which is a point you seemed to argue with. We'll likely be at >70M natural infections before vaccination efforts hit full steam in mid-January. This is pretty close to the lower end of where models predict herd immunity effects (not ~60% because of non-uniform contact graphs and susceptibility). You don't need a whole lot of vaccination tacked on top of this to start to tamp things down, even though A) some of the vaccinations will be wasted, and B) the vaccinations will not be as "on-target" to break important links in the graph as infection itself is.
    - FlyMoreRockets 6y ago
      > But I did assert that past infections does reduce the doses you need to give to reach herd immunity, which is a point you seemed to argue with. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I wasn't arguing that past infections change the needed doses, I was arguing that undiagnosed positives waste limited doses. Hope that's clarified.

Sure, there may be 53M infections, but how many of those untested positives will go on to get a vaccine? This will actually hinder herd immunity, wasting limited vaccines.

mlyle 6y ago

> Sure, there may be 53M infections, but how many of those untested positives will go on to get a vaccine? This will actually hinder herd immunity, wasting limited vaccines. Oh, ideally you wouldn't vaccinate people who are already immune, but saying it hinders herd immunity is a bit silly. I find it's always helpful to do thought experiments at the limit. Do you think reaching herd immunity requires more doses A) in a population that is 99% of the way to herd immunity, but that 25% of doses will be wasted because they'll be given to people who are already immune, or B) in a population that is 1% of the way to herd immunity, but only 4% of doses will be wasted in this way?

FlyMoreRockets 6y ago
> Oh, ideally you wouldn't vaccinate people who are already immune, but saying it hinders herd immunity is a bit silly. If you only have 100M doses and you waste half on undetected positives, that definitely hinders achieving herd immunity. Unless you are saying uncontrolled spread helps develop herd immunity. It does, but it isn't a desirable method.
- mlyle 6y ago
  > but it isn't a desirable method. Nobody said it was a desirable method. But I did assert that past infections does reduce the doses you need to give to reach herd immunity, which is a point you seemed to argue with. We'll likely be at >70M natural infections before vaccination efforts hit full steam in mid-January. This is pretty close to the lower end of where models predict herd immunity effects (not ~60% because of non-uniform contact graphs and susceptibility). You don't need a whole lot of vaccination tacked on top of this to start to tamp things down, even though A) some of the vaccinations will be wasted, and B) the vaccinations will not be as "on-target" to break important links in the graph as infection itself is.
  - FlyMoreRockets 6y ago
    > But I did assert that past infections does reduce the doses you need to give to reach herd immunity, which is a point you seemed to argue with. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I wasn't arguing that past infections change the needed doses, I was arguing that undiagnosed positives waste limited doses. Hope that's clarified.