3 ms·

But it's not a choice between vaccinating one person with one dose and vaccinating one person with two doses. It's a choice between vaccinating one person with

by ummonk 6y ago

But it's not a choice between vaccinating one person with one dose and vaccinating one person with two doses. It's a choice between vaccinating one person with two doses and vaccinating two people with one dose apiece. If you try to give the person a second dose, that means you're causing another person to be walking around completely unprotected.

ineedasername 6y ago
I completely agree that, once we know if or when immunity starts to drop, we should absolutely maximize # of people getting shots instead of maximizing the immunity level of people getting the shots which is a relatively incremental increase anyway. I'm not sure we have that data though, and until we do have that data then we need to proceed with a known protocol that maximizes immunity. Because if the vaccine wears off quickly. Then, the issue of the second person it moot. Vaccinating them becomes a net 0: Person A that got the first vaccine is losing their immunity while second person is gaining immunity. However, assuming the pharmaceutical companies can & are massively ramping up production, and given that the logistics network for distributing & administering the shot is improving, We will hopefully get to the point when all of the above is completely irrelevant because there will be ample supply and ample bandwidth to administer the dosesto everyone. I think in the short term we also get a little bit of a boost from the folks who have already been infected. AFAIK, their resistance may not last long-- as little as 6 months perhaps. But in terms of getting spread rates under control, and assuming twice as many people have been infected as the official record shows (which might be conservative, it's just educated guess) Then that means in addition to those getting vaccinated, We have about 55million formerly infected people that should have some level of resistance. Anyway, thanks for an interesting conversation.

by ummonk 6y ago

ineedasername 6y ago

I completely agree that, once we know if or when immunity starts to drop, we should absolutely maximize # of people getting shots instead of maximizing the immunity level of people getting the shots which is a relatively incremental increase anyway. I'm not sure we have that data though, and until we do have that data then we need to proceed with a known protocol that maximizes immunity. Because if the vaccine wears off quickly. Then, the issue of the second person it moot. Vaccinating them becomes a net 0: Person A that got the first vaccine is losing their immunity while second person is gaining immunity. However, assuming the pharmaceutical companies can & are massively ramping up production, and given that the logistics network for distributing & administering the shot is improving, We will hopefully get to the point when all of the above is completely irrelevant because there will be ample supply and ample bandwidth to administer the dosesto everyone. I think in the short term we also get a little bit of a boost from the folks who have already been infected. AFAIK, their resistance may not last long-- as little as 6 months perhaps. But in terms of getting spread rates under control, and assuming twice as many people have been infected as the official record shows (which might be conservative, it's just educated guess) Then that means in addition to those getting vaccinated, We have about 55million formerly infected people that should have some level of resistance. Anyway, thanks for an interesting conversation.