5 ms·
Wow. That's initial doses for 1/30 people already, a few weeks after approval. And there's still more vaccines yet to be approved and distributed. If the Defen
by throwaway189262 6y ago
Wow. That's initial doses for 1/30 people already, a few weeks after approval. And there's still more vaccines yet to be approved and distributed.
If the Defence Production Act really ends up being used we could see the US hit herd immunity in 3 months.
Since we're distributing to old and vulnerable first, I speculate we'll see fataility rate plunge in as little as 3 weeks. Maybe enough to take the whole US out of lockdown
- goseeastarwar 6y agoIt'll be closer to 6-8 weeks since these early vaccines require two doses.
- throwaway189262 6y agoSubstantial resistance is built up after 8 days from the stuff I've read. Yeah immunity level is not great, but look at mortality in the studies. AFAIK nobody that got even a single dose ended up in the hospital. That's huge if true. That means hospitizations will plummet well before everyone is through their second dose.
- double0jimb0 6y agoIt’s 12 days https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577
- davycro 6y agoDo you have a citation for this claim? I heard or read similar but then couldn’t find the source.
- throwaway189262 6y agoI dug deep for this lol... It looks like somebody ballparked it from a graph, I read it in a news story I can't find. It looks like COVID incidence among study participants comes to a screeching halt somewhere around 8-12 days after first dose Page 30 of https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download See this graph > Cumulative Incidence Curves for the First COVID-19 Occurrence After Dose 1, Dose 1 All-Available Efficacy Population Also keep in mind this graph is probably based on COVID diagnosis date. Since it's unrealistic to test positive the day you contract COVID, I think it's reasonable to say it might even be effective from day 3-5 on
- davycro 6y agoAmazing! Thank you for digging! This is the most common question that I am asked at work.
- bawolff 6y agoThey allegedly have partial immunity after the first dose (how partial i have no idea, and it might fade really quickly if you don't get the second), but its possible its enough to have some effect if enough of the right populations have the first dose.
- almost_usual 6y agoI wish I was this optimistic.
- yokaze 6y agoThe production of those doses started long time before the approval. I've heard that we can count ourselves lucky, if we reach sufficient vaccination rate before winter. One thing to keep in mind, obesity is a risk factor.
- mrslave 6y agoYou should really put your normal account against interesting - and rather bold - predictions like this. Other than getting it wrong, I can't imagine what reason you might have to throwaway on this subject? HN is a largely good faith audience.
- throwaway1777 6y agoThe risk of getting cancelled is too high, so it’s best to always use a throwaway.
- TaylorAlexander 6y agoSorry, but you piqued my interest. What does “getting canceled” mean here? You made some projections which may or may not be correct... but do you think people would remember who you are and hold it against you in the future if you made that comment with your main account? I apologize if that isn’t what you meant, I’m just trying to understand your thinking.
- TeMPOraL 6y agoI'm guessing they mean in general. HN crowd doesn't cancel people, but HN is also a public board with a somewhat peculiar fan following on Twitter...
- altano 6y agoWhat's an example of a person being "canceled" by leaving a good faith Hacker News comment?
- throwaway201103 6y agoCanceling can be something that hasn't happened yet. All that we write online is forever.
- throwaway189262 6y ago
- dehrmann 6y ago> If the Defence Production Act really ends up being used we could see the US hit herd immunity in 3 months. We've had so much time to ramp up production that using the defense production act would just confuse things. We were actually producing vaccines before they were approved in order to rush this out.
- throwaway189262 6y agoVaccines are traditionally not very profitable. Companies don't have an incentive to ramp up production ASAP because they know as soon as everybody is vaccinated demand will tank. There's plenty more profitable things to spend their time and resources on. However, for everyone besides the drug companies it's advantageous to manufacture doses as quickly as possible. It's the same reason DPA is used in wars. It would be vastly more profitable to produce scarce luxury items but not in the best interest of society. The interests of drug companies and society are not completely aligned here and DPA would force them to apply all their resources to the problem, rather than maximum profitability.
- dehrmann 6y ago> Since we're distributing to old and vulnerable first, I speculate we'll see fataility rate plunge in as little as 3 weeks. As others have said, there's more lag than you think, so it'll be more like 6-9 weeks, especially with a Christmas surge. The other thing to remember is that we have a poor understanding of how it spreads. I don't mean that it's airborne, but that there isn't much evidence to suggest vaccinating the elderly and first responders is the best way to stop the spread. It's not an unreasonable choice, but there's a lot we failed to understand going into the winter.
- jsinai 6y agoI’ve always thought that vaccinating elderly and first responders was less about stopping spread and more about reducing fatalities among the most vulnerable. After all it is the least vulnerable who are most likely to be the main spreaders, and until a reasonable portion of <65 year olds are vaccinated, the spread is likely to continue and probably even flatten before that point. However since most countries in the world are in the middle of a 2nd/3rd wave, it makes absolute sense to vaccinate the vulnerable first rather than try race against the curve with a vaccination programme. Especially when the vaccination lag is longer than the spread.
- dehrmann 6y ago> less about stopping spread and more about reducing fatalities among the most vulnerable This is a reasonable strategy, but I disagree with it. > the least vulnerable who are most likely to be the main spreaders [citation needed]. To my main point, we just don't understand how it spreads well enough to really say.
- surfmike 6y agoRight, I think parent isn’t talking about slowing the spread, but fatality rate in isolation. Since the deaths are highly concentrated in older people, once they’re all vaccinated then COVID will, on average, be much less lethal and there will be much less pressure on ICU beds.
- 6y ago
- kart23 6y agoThe people going out, being social and contributing to case counts are mostly younger healthy people. Which are among the last to get vaccinated. There was a fascinating article here a while ago claiming that if we vaccinated those people first, we actually would stop the spread far quicker.
- throwaway189262 6y agoYoung people have far lower fatality and hospitalization rates though. If COVID only infected people under 40 it would be equivalent to a bad flu season. A lot of reason for mask wearing and social distancing is to protect the vulnerable
- kart23 6y agoyeah, i mean that’s why we are vaccinating the most vulnerable first and i agree that’s the ethically right thing to do. but doing it the other way around would probably stop it quicker.
- Pinguinsan 6y agoHas the vaccine been shown to prevent transmission?
- redis_mlc 6y agoNah, half of Americans won't take it. I'm interested if the vaccine works on all strains.