2 ms·

Only 1 out of 3-4 infections are confirmed. That would increase the actual number of infections to 30%-40% which is in-line with having at least 1 in 4 childre

Only 1 out of 3-4 infections are confirmed. That would increase the actual number of infections to 30%-40% which is in-line with having at least 1 in 4 children having been infected. Current total incidence is the wrong metric to use since tht will increase over time. Not using vaccines would mean 3x or so more infections before some level of herd immunity was reached. It would also give the virus another 3x the number of die rolls towards mutating as well, with pressure to increase transmissibility which should come with an increase in virulence. And my 1-in-12,500 numbers were before the virus started to mutate to increase transmissibility/virulence. Those numbers will probably drop.

beagle3 6y ago
I don’t have time now to check this, but most research I know shows mutations happen significantly more often in the immune compromised even when vaccinated on one hand, and that while increased transmissibility is associated with a strain or too, that’s not remotely true in general or about virulence. Regardless, if I take your numbers, assuming 33% had the virus, we’re talking about very similar toys incidence at saturation (the 1:20,000 - 1:10,000 range, the error bars are huge), so it is far from obvious that the existing vaccines are safer than the disease. It is true for all approved vaccines I’m familiar with; but you can’t claim that for any of the Sarscov2 vaccines based on available data. What I’m really surprised is that somehow the default mindset changed from “we have to establish safety to use” to “we have to establish non-safety to not use”. Am really puzzled by that.