4 ms·

I don't mean to imply that this is your intention at all, but it's a false choice. Both questions are interesting; no need to set them up as if they were in ten

I don't mean to imply that this is your intention at all, but it's a false choice. Both questions are interesting; no need to set them up as if they were in tension with one another.

tengbretson 6y ago
It actually can put them in tension. If the vaccine only stops symptoms it can remove the selective pressure to be less deadly and can actually cause the virus to evolve to be more deadly overall. If this is the situation we are in, then it would make the most sense to only vaccinate the most vulnerable, and not vaccinate the bulk of the population in order to keep the virus selected for survival + transmissibility.
- standardUser 6y ago
  "...can actually cause the virus to evolve to be more deadly overall" That is wildly speculative. Pathogens do not evolve inevitably towards maximum lethality.
  - tengbretson 6y ago
    > That is wildly speculative. I'm not sure what more you should be asking for in a discussion about "what could happen" Of course it is speculation. And it is based on what we know about other viruses at large and the our current best information about covid.
tus89 6y ago
I meant less interesting as in all the studies/trials have already confirmed that the vaccines significantly reduce severe symptoms...the effect on transmission is still an open question from what I understand.
- carbocation 6y ago
  Yes, I'm also personally most interested in that question. (But will accept more data on any of these questions, since they're so societally important.)
- djrogers 6y ago
  Preliminary results look good https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-israel-vaccine-int/israeli-studies-find-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-reduces-transmission-idUSKBN2AJ08J https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-israel-va...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

4 ms·

I don't mean to imply that this is your intention at all, but it's a false choice. Both questions are interesting; no need to set them up as if they were in ten

by carbocation 6y ago

I don't mean to imply that this is your intention at all, but it's a false choice. Both questions are interesting; no need to set them up as if they were in tension with one another.

tengbretson 6y ago
It actually can put them in tension. If the vaccine only stops symptoms it can remove the selective pressure to be less deadly and can actually cause the virus to evolve to be more deadly overall. If this is the situation we are in, then it would make the most sense to only vaccinate the most vulnerable, and not vaccinate the bulk of the population in order to keep the virus selected for survival + transmissibility.
- standardUser 6y ago
  "...can actually cause the virus to evolve to be more deadly overall" That is wildly speculative. Pathogens do not evolve inevitably towards maximum lethality.
  - tengbretson 6y ago
    > That is wildly speculative. I'm not sure what more you should be asking for in a discussion about "what could happen" Of course it is speculation. And it is based on what we know about other viruses at large and the our current best information about covid.
tus89 6y ago
I meant less interesting as in all the studies/trials have already confirmed that the vaccines significantly reduce severe symptoms...the effect on transmission is still an open question from what I understand.
- carbocation 6y ago
  Yes, I'm also personally most interested in that question. (But will accept more data on any of these questions, since they're so societally important.)
- djrogers 6y ago
  Preliminary results look good https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-israel-vaccine-int/israeli-studies-find-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-reduces-transmission-idUSKBN2AJ08J https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-israel-va...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]