3 ms·

This is less clear-cut than it seems because nearly everyone that's highest risk is retired and doesn't really need to leave the house. Is it better to tell a d

This is less clear-cut than it seems because nearly everyone that's highest risk is retired and doesn't really need to leave the house. Is it better to tell a dozen pensioners that leave the house once a week for grocies to stay home so younger people can get vaccinated and go back to work? Possibly, depending on who you're asking. Younger people are far more mobile and so contribute greatly to the spread of the virus. The old and sick don't go out much so aren't the ones spreading the virus. Is it more important to stop the spread as quickly as possible or directly vaccine the more vulnerable? It's hard to know, and it probably depends on how much vaccine you have. Countries like the US with lots of vaccine may be better off vaccinating the most mobile members of society first to drop total infections ASAP. Countries with less are better off focusing on the vulnerable because they're a long way from herd immunity. If you have enough vaccine supply you will minimize deaths by eliminating transmission quickest which implies vaccinating the most exposed, not the most vulnerable.

imwillofficial 6y ago
Throwing more variables at a question we already have an answer to is a waste of time. We know that older people get it more, die more, and are more at risk under all circumstances.
- henrikschroder 6y ago
  It is also infinitely easier to find old people than it is to find uninfected super-spreaders, we'll have vaccinated all the elderly long before anyone could develop a system to find the biggest potential spreaders. Also, with vaccine production ramping up, a lot of countries project that they'll have vaccinated everyone by summer. Who cares if there's a better model? Elderly + frontline healthcare workers is a good enough model, go go go!
  - imwillofficial 6y ago
    "uninfected super-spreaders" That's not a thing.
- throwaway189262 6y ago
  Less of them may die if we can get R0 under 1.0 faster by vaccinating those spreading the virus. It's absolutely still an open question IMO. You are wrong about the first part. There are way more under 65 infected than over. And I've seen some preliminary studies that they do 80%+ of the viral spreading.

imwillofficial 6y ago

Throwing more variables at a question we already have an answer to is a waste of time. We know that older people get it more, die more, and are more at risk under all circumstances.

henrikschroder 6y ago
It is also infinitely easier to find old people than it is to find uninfected super-spreaders, we'll have vaccinated all the elderly long before anyone could develop a system to find the biggest potential spreaders. Also, with vaccine production ramping up, a lot of countries project that they'll have vaccinated everyone by summer. Who cares if there's a better model? Elderly + frontline healthcare workers is a good enough model, go go go!
- imwillofficial 6y ago
  "uninfected super-spreaders" That's not a thing.
throwaway189262 6y ago
Less of them may die if we can get R0 under 1.0 faster by vaccinating those spreading the virus. It's absolutely still an open question IMO. You are wrong about the first part. There are way more under 65 infected than over. And I've seen some preliminary studies that they do 80%+ of the viral spreading.