3 ms·

There are entirely too many assumptions in that statement, especially with the complete lack of evidence cited. There is a lot of concern right now amongst scie

by tedivm 6y ago

There are entirely too many assumptions in that statement, especially with the complete lack of evidence cited. There is a lot of concern right now amongst scientists that our uneven rollouts could cause new variants to spread, and that this could turn into more of a yearly flu vaccine with a constant fight to stay in front of it. The problem is that those 70% numbers assume even distribution, but that isn't turning out to be the case. Not only are different countries going at very different rates, but even inside of the US you can see a huge spread. This isn't just about where the vaccine is being delivered but we're it's being ignored. It's not hard to imagine that LA County might not ever get up to the 60% to 70% threshold needed for herd immunity due to a large community of antivaxxers who can support and spread new variants that spread further out. This very article we're reading briefly mentions this, as pfizer is already working on boosters. Covid is not going to just disappear in the next six weeks.

jychang 6y ago
I'm actually more optimistic than that. I read an interesting article arguing that "the people who deserve the vaccine the least, should be the ones getting it first". As in, the kid who irresponsibly goes to Miami on spring break, should be the person getting the vaccine first- because vaccinating super spreaders would save more lives than vaccinating someone who stays home anyways. So arguably, the people who are most likely to transmit the disease should get vaccinated first. The flip side of the coin is people who are most likely to catch the disease- probably already did. I can name a handful of people who I'm facebook friends with, who gave no shits about staying at home and caught covid already a few months ago. So now, 1 year into the lockdown, the people who are most likely superspreaders- already got infected and are mostly immune. On the other hand, we're going to have 1/3 or 1/4 of the population still stay at home regardless of what the govt says. So a significant percent of the population isn't contributing to spread anymore, even if they're not vaccinated.
ls612 6y ago
Covid won't disappear but the risk of mass casualty events from the virus certainly will, and that should be enough to remove the pandemic restrictions. We've lived with endemic infectious disease for a long time, and we will continue to live with them for the rest of our lives.

by tedivm 6y ago

jychang 6y ago

I'm actually more optimistic than that. I read an interesting article arguing that "the people who deserve the vaccine the least, should be the ones getting it first". As in, the kid who irresponsibly goes to Miami on spring break, should be the person getting the vaccine first- because vaccinating super spreaders would save more lives than vaccinating someone who stays home anyways. So arguably, the people who are most likely to transmit the disease should get vaccinated first. The flip side of the coin is people who are most likely to catch the disease- probably already did. I can name a handful of people who I'm facebook friends with, who gave no shits about staying at home and caught covid already a few months ago. So now, 1 year into the lockdown, the people who are most likely superspreaders- already got infected and are mostly immune. On the other hand, we're going to have 1/3 or 1/4 of the population still stay at home regardless of what the govt says. So a significant percent of the population isn't contributing to spread anymore, even if they're not vaccinated.

ls612 6y ago

Covid won't disappear but the risk of mass casualty events from the virus certainly will, and that should be enough to remove the pandemic restrictions. We've lived with endemic infectious disease for a long time, and we will continue to live with them for the rest of our lives.