13 ms·

Well, it's what we got, and it's how we plan to get out of this (apparently). Also, what's wrong with a vaccine that stops people dying?

by ppf 6y ago

nicoburns 6y ago
It still allows the virus to replicate and mutate, potentially into a variant that is different enough that the vaccine no longer prevents people from dying.
- ppf 6y ago
  Like I said - so do many vaccines. I suppose we need to all lock ourselves back in our houses for a few more years while researchers make a new vaccine for Covid-19, that does provide sterlising immunity? This is why creating a vaccine for coronaviruses is a fool's errand. This is all very predictable. We have to look at the actual harm being done, and decide if all this is worth it.
  - sharken 6y ago
    Indeed, some realism to the coronavirus aftermath has been lacking. If the vaccines do reduce hospitalizations and ultimately deaths, then we can live with it and can forget about vaccine passes and restrictions. Getting your optional and yearly coronavirus booster is a likely and realistic outcome of all this.
- Symmetry 6y ago
  Sure, but your normal immune response applies the same selective pressures and allows order of magnitude more replication prior to that giving the virus orders of magnitude more chances to come up with a mutation to circumvent them. Even without preventing infection entirely vaccination still seems drastically better than the alternative.
Dylan16807 6y ago
> it's what we got Citation needed. (And I don't mean citing someone that says "not yet proven") > and it's how we plan to get out of this Are we hearing the same news? There is so much emphasis on stopping spreading. > Also, what's wrong with a vaccine that stops people dying? ...? Nothing. Where did you get the idea I was saying that? Vaccines have two primary goals. If a vaccine only does one it's a huge downgrade but still valuable.
- ppf 6y ago
  It's what we have, according to the designers of the various vaccines. Unless you are suggesting that all things are true unless proven otherwise, in which case I'd ask you to go back and check some books on elementary logic. There is some work after the fact to measure the effect on Covid transmission of the vaccines, but even that isn't very promising. It's odd when "stopping people dying" is "a huge downgrade". I suspect what you mean is that the vaccines in their current form will not get us out of the restrictions we are currently living under, which is true (and incredibly predicable).
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    > It's what we have, according to the designers of the various vaccines. Unless you are suggesting that all things are true unless proven otherwise, in which case I'd ask you to go back and check some books on elementary logic. That's not a citation. And vaccines are designed with a very general goal of "make the body fight this". That can potentually affect both symptoms and transmission. Don't argue in bad faith and equate that to "anything could be true" > There is some work after the fact to measure the effect on Covid transmission of the vaccines, but even that isn't very promising. Huh? Checking if the vaccine does anything at all is after the design is done. The choice of when to test symptoms vs. spreading is more about difficulty of getting the data than anything else. > It's odd when "stopping people dying" is "a huge downgrade". Stopping one person from a chance of dying is a downgrade from both stopping that and stopping transmission to more people that have their own chance of dying.
    - 6y ago

Well, it's what we got, and it's how we plan to get out of this (apparently). Also, what's wrong with a vaccine that stops people dying?

by ppf 6y ago

Well, it's what we got, and it's how we plan to get out of this (apparently). Also, what's wrong with a vaccine that stops people dying?

nicoburns 6y ago

It still allows the virus to replicate and mutate, potentially into a variant that is different enough that the vaccine no longer prevents people from dying.

ppf 6y ago
Like I said - so do many vaccines. I suppose we need to all lock ourselves back in our houses for a few more years while researchers make a new vaccine for Covid-19, that does provide sterlising immunity? This is why creating a vaccine for coronaviruses is a fool's errand. This is all very predictable. We have to look at the actual harm being done, and decide if all this is worth it.
- sharken 6y ago
  Indeed, some realism to the coronavirus aftermath has been lacking. If the vaccines do reduce hospitalizations and ultimately deaths, then we can live with it and can forget about vaccine passes and restrictions. Getting your optional and yearly coronavirus booster is a likely and realistic outcome of all this.
Symmetry 6y ago
Sure, but your normal immune response applies the same selective pressures and allows order of magnitude more replication prior to that giving the virus orders of magnitude more chances to come up with a mutation to circumvent them. Even without preventing infection entirely vaccination still seems drastically better than the alternative.

Dylan16807 6y ago

> it's what we got Citation needed. (And I don't mean citing someone that says "not yet proven") > and it's how we plan to get out of this Are we hearing the same news? There is so much emphasis on stopping spreading. > Also, what's wrong with a vaccine that stops people dying? ...? Nothing. Where did you get the idea I was saying that? Vaccines have two primary goals. If a vaccine only does one it's a huge downgrade but still valuable.

ppf 6y ago
It's what we have, according to the designers of the various vaccines. Unless you are suggesting that all things are true unless proven otherwise, in which case I'd ask you to go back and check some books on elementary logic. There is some work after the fact to measure the effect on Covid transmission of the vaccines, but even that isn't very promising. It's odd when "stopping people dying" is "a huge downgrade". I suspect what you mean is that the vaccines in their current form will not get us out of the restrictions we are currently living under, which is true (and incredibly predicable).
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  > It's what we have, according to the designers of the various vaccines. Unless you are suggesting that all things are true unless proven otherwise, in which case I'd ask you to go back and check some books on elementary logic. That's not a citation. And vaccines are designed with a very general goal of "make the body fight this". That can potentually affect both symptoms and transmission. Don't argue in bad faith and equate that to "anything could be true" > There is some work after the fact to measure the effect on Covid transmission of the vaccines, but even that isn't very promising. Huh? Checking if the vaccine does anything at all is after the design is done. The choice of when to test symptoms vs. spreading is more about difficulty of getting the data than anything else. > It's odd when "stopping people dying" is "a huge downgrade". Stopping one person from a chance of dying is a downgrade from both stopping that and stopping transmission to more people that have their own chance of dying.
  - 6y ago