4 ms·

No evidence that the vaccine stops spread, or even slows it down. It improves outcomes, so hospitals won’t be overloaded. Israel is over 40% on first dose and

No evidence that the vaccine stops spread, or even slows it down. It improves outcomes, so hospitals won’t be overloaded. Israel is over 40% on first dose and should have interesting reault sun the next month or two.

ThrustVectoring 6y ago
No evidence that it doesn't, either. It's simply hard to get this evidence and irrelevant for getting vaccines approved, so nobody has bothered. And it'd be really odd if it didn't help wrt infection rate.
- disgruntledphd2 6y ago
  Yeah, it would be great if the vaccine does prevent spread, but we should act like it doesn't until we know more. As someone mentioned upthread, Israel will be an early indicator here.
- midasuni 6y ago
  Irellevent for getting it approved, not irellevent for herd immunity purposes
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
voiper1 6y ago
Well it's only 40% if you count only the over age 16 population. (Israel is not vaccinating under age 16 until more information.) If you look at the entire population, it's only about 28% got 1st dose and 12% got second dose, many within the last week. But with a population of about 9.3 million (size and population comparable to New Jersey) and they just ramped up to about 1million vaccinations a week, we could be at "full" vaccination March 26th - 85% of eligible population, 2nd dose, and 1 week for it to take affect. Source: Israel's ministry of health https://datadashboard.health.gov.il/COVID-19/general https://datadashboard.health.gov.il/COVID-19/general and wikipedia's population information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Israel#Age_structure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Israel#Age_str...
graeme 6y ago
This is the new “we have no evidence masks help” or “no evidence of asymptomatic spread”. Name a vaccine that doesn’t reduce onward transmission even as it cures disease. It’s overwhelmingly likely that the vaccine will slow transmission and foolish to throw our priors in the garbage bin. What we don’t know yet is how much onward transmission will be reduced.
- votepaunchy 6y ago
  Name a disease where the measure of infection is a PCR test with a 40+ cycle threshold.
  - nickthemagicman 6y ago
    Whats the normal cycle threshold for identifying pathogens? This is interesting.
  - yread 6y ago
    In this paper they've used 45 for HIV. What's your point? https://www.hindawi.com/journals/art/2016/7954810/ https://www.hindawi.com/journals/art/2016/7954810/
    - nanis 6y ago
      > In this paper they've used 45 for HIV. What's your point? There is a difference between HIV vs SARS-Cov2: If you get AIDS, your body does not have the capacity to recover from it on its own. So, 1) the chances of detecting dead material from a long gone infection are nil; and 2) the cost of a false negative is much higher than the cost of a false positive. Since most people seem not to be seriously affected by a SARS-Cov2 infection, neither is true for SARS-Cov2. So, not agreeing on a fixed, reasonable, standard number of cycles which everyone uses has the consequence of inflating false positives for no gain. Note WHO's updated information[1]. > WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. If you are not sick and your viral load is barely detectable, what's the point? See also Figure 1 in WHO's lab guidance[2]. [1]: https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-2021-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users-2020-05 https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-2021-who-information-not... [2]: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/334254/WHO-2019-nCoV-laboratory-2020.6-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/334254/WHO-...
cik 6y ago
Living in Israel I can tell you that the (current) plan involves masks and distancing for the entirety of 2021. We now have reasonable evidence that those vaccinated folks are still transmitters of the virus, and as of today, the majority of new cases in the last 48 hours were from the UK strain that targets children. The real worry here is unfortunately human behaviour and not science. The science is clear, and it's been said/written/screamed/spraypainted that the #1 reason we have all of these restrictions is actually human behaviour as opposed to the virus itself.
- loveistheanswer 6y ago
  >The science is clear, and it's been said/written/screamed/spraypainted that the #1 reason we have all of these restrictions is actually human behaviour as opposed to the virus itself. Nope, if the virus didnt exist, there would be no restrictions; therefore, it is the primary reason. Has there ever been a control group or any historical precedence to scientifically support the questionable hypothesis that a highly contagious virus can be can be globally controlled simply by controlling human behavior? (i.e. locking down entire nations while "essential workers" -- poor people -- are still forced to go to work)
  - mbg721 6y ago
    Mere history won't stop us from trying to restrict human behavior into oblivion.

ThrustVectoring 6y ago

No evidence that it doesn't, either. It's simply hard to get this evidence and irrelevant for getting vaccines approved, so nobody has bothered. And it'd be really odd if it didn't help wrt infection rate.

disgruntledphd2 6y ago
Yeah, it would be great if the vaccine does prevent spread, but we should act like it doesn't until we know more. As someone mentioned upthread, Israel will be an early indicator here.
midasuni 6y ago
Irellevent for getting it approved, not irellevent for herd immunity purposes

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

voiper1 6y ago

Well it's only 40% if you count only the over age 16 population. (Israel is not vaccinating under age 16 until more information.) If you look at the entire population, it's only about 28% got 1st dose and 12% got second dose, many within the last week. But with a population of about 9.3 million (size and population comparable to New Jersey) and they just ramped up to about 1million vaccinations a week, we could be at "full" vaccination March 26th - 85% of eligible population, 2nd dose, and 1 week for it to take affect. Source: Israel's ministry of health https://datadashboard.health.gov.il/COVID-19/general https://datadashboard.health.gov.il/COVID-19/general and wikipedia's population information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Israel#Age_structure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Israel#Age_str...

graeme 6y ago

This is the new “we have no evidence masks help” or “no evidence of asymptomatic spread”. Name a vaccine that doesn’t reduce onward transmission even as it cures disease. It’s overwhelmingly likely that the vaccine will slow transmission and foolish to throw our priors in the garbage bin. What we don’t know yet is how much onward transmission will be reduced.

votepaunchy 6y ago
Name a disease where the measure of infection is a PCR test with a 40+ cycle threshold.
- nickthemagicman 6y ago
  Whats the normal cycle threshold for identifying pathogens? This is interesting.
- yread 6y ago
  In this paper they've used 45 for HIV. What's your point? https://www.hindawi.com/journals/art/2016/7954810/ https://www.hindawi.com/journals/art/2016/7954810/
  - nanis 6y ago
    > In this paper they've used 45 for HIV. What's your point? There is a difference between HIV vs SARS-Cov2: If you get AIDS, your body does not have the capacity to recover from it on its own. So, 1) the chances of detecting dead material from a long gone infection are nil; and 2) the cost of a false negative is much higher than the cost of a false positive. Since most people seem not to be seriously affected by a SARS-Cov2 infection, neither is true for SARS-Cov2. So, not agreeing on a fixed, reasonable, standard number of cycles which everyone uses has the consequence of inflating false positives for no gain. Note WHO's updated information[1]. > WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. If you are not sick and your viral load is barely detectable, what's the point? See also Figure 1 in WHO's lab guidance[2]. [1]: https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-2021-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users-2020-05 https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-2021-who-information-not... [2]: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/334254/WHO-2019-nCoV-laboratory-2020.6-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/334254/WHO-...

cik 6y ago

Living in Israel I can tell you that the (current) plan involves masks and distancing for the entirety of 2021. We now have reasonable evidence that those vaccinated folks are still transmitters of the virus, and as of today, the majority of new cases in the last 48 hours were from the UK strain that targets children. The real worry here is unfortunately human behaviour and not science. The science is clear, and it's been said/written/screamed/spraypainted that the #1 reason we have all of these restrictions is actually human behaviour as opposed to the virus itself.

loveistheanswer 6y ago
>The science is clear, and it's been said/written/screamed/spraypainted that the #1 reason we have all of these restrictions is actually human behaviour as opposed to the virus itself. Nope, if the virus didnt exist, there would be no restrictions; therefore, it is the primary reason. Has there ever been a control group or any historical precedence to scientifically support the questionable hypothesis that a highly contagious virus can be can be globally controlled simply by controlling human behavior? (i.e. locking down entire nations while "essential workers" -- poor people -- are still forced to go to work)
- mbg721 6y ago
  Mere history won't stop us from trying to restrict human behavior into oblivion.