3 ms·
True. But if you make the disease not deadly at all, then no one dies, regardless of how transmissible it is.
by 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 agoUntill you visit a place with a significant un-vaccinated population. This has happened with other diseases.
- sgeisenh 6y agoThe 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 agoIsn' 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 agoNot everyone can be vaccinated for a plethora of reasons. This would do nothing for that cohort.
- munk-a 6y agoThat 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.