3 ms·

Reducing severity is just as important as reducing transmission. I know what you're driving at and it's all pretty interesting - but counterintuitively I think

Reducing severity is just as important as reducing transmission. I know what you're driving at and it's all pretty interesting - but counterintuitively I think it's way more effective overall to reduce transmission than it is to reduce severity. If you make the disease half as deadly, then pretty simply half as many people die. But if you make the disease half as transmissible, then the compound impact means that far fewer than half as many people die.

NovaJehovah 6y ago
True. But if you make the disease not deadly at all, then no one dies, regardless of how transmissible it is.
- srean 6y ago
  Untill you visit a place with a significant un-vaccinated population. This has happened with other diseases.
- sgeisenh 6y ago
  The problem is that if the vaccinated population carries the virus, then the risk of being infected increases for the unvaccinated population. It doesn't matter if the vaccine reduces the severity of the virus if you haven't received the vaccine. On the other hand, if the vaccine reduces the transmissibility of the virus, then everybody collectively benefits from each additional vaccination.
- rajin444 6y ago
  Isn' that how you end up with a leaky vaccine? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marek%27s_disease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marek%27s_disease While it seems rare, it also seems like a much deadlier outcome.
- xyzzy_plugh 6y ago
  Not everyone can be vaccinated for a plethora of reasons. This would do nothing for that cohort.
- munk-a 6y ago
  That is not the case - it is for that specific variant of the disease but diseases spread through the entire population have a huge area to mutate in and one of those mutations could be quite deadly. One of the reason there's a lot of gas behind rolling this vaccine out quickly is that we want to avoid allowing the virus enough time to mutate up some different strains that this vaccine isn't effective in preparing us for since that makes the vaccine far less effective overall.
hinkley 6y ago
> If you make the disease half as deadly, I think you undercut your own point for no reason. Less deadly diseases get less reverence, leading to more risk taking. The percentage of people who die goes down, but the number of cases goes way up, resulting in potentially greater loss of life overall. Look at how cavalier we are about influenza, and then we set policy based on whether things are worse than the flu.

NovaJehovah 6y ago

True. But if you make the disease not deadly at all, then no one dies, regardless of how transmissible it is.

srean 6y ago
Untill you visit a place with a significant un-vaccinated population. This has happened with other diseases.
sgeisenh 6y ago
The problem is that if the vaccinated population carries the virus, then the risk of being infected increases for the unvaccinated population. It doesn't matter if the vaccine reduces the severity of the virus if you haven't received the vaccine. On the other hand, if the vaccine reduces the transmissibility of the virus, then everybody collectively benefits from each additional vaccination.
rajin444 6y ago
Isn' that how you end up with a leaky vaccine? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marek%27s_disease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marek%27s_disease While it seems rare, it also seems like a much deadlier outcome.
xyzzy_plugh 6y ago
Not everyone can be vaccinated for a plethora of reasons. This would do nothing for that cohort.
munk-a 6y ago
That is not the case - it is for that specific variant of the disease but diseases spread through the entire population have a huge area to mutate in and one of those mutations could be quite deadly. One of the reason there's a lot of gas behind rolling this vaccine out quickly is that we want to avoid allowing the virus enough time to mutate up some different strains that this vaccine isn't effective in preparing us for since that makes the vaccine far less effective overall.

hinkley 6y ago

> If you make the disease half as deadly, I think you undercut your own point for no reason. Less deadly diseases get less reverence, leading to more risk taking. The percentage of people who die goes down, but the number of cases goes way up, resulting in potentially greater loss of life overall. Look at how cavalier we are about influenza, and then we set policy based on whether things are worse than the flu.