4 ms·

Not quite. As far as the terminology goes, I don't think they're the same, since to me having disease implies feeling ill—note "disease" = "not at ease" = "COVI

Not quite. As far as the terminology goes, I don't think they're the same, since to me having disease implies feeling ill—note "disease" = "not at ease" = "COVID-19"—whereas infection implies merely carrying the SARS-CoV-2 virus in your body regardless of any visible effects. (Having SARS-CoV-2 does not imply you have COVID-19!) But in any case, let me clarify this. What I agree with (and in my initial comment I said nothing about) is that it matters if people can spread the virus to others. What I don't with is that it matters if you're "infected" if you can't spread it to others (and don't have severe symptoms). The important thing here is that, from what I recall Dr. Fauci said a month or so ago, there have been promising indications that vaccinated people who get infected with the virus are both significantly less likely to get the disease (COVID-19) and to transmit the virus (SARS-CoV-2) to others (independently of the disease, COVID-19). You can read about this on the CDC website [1]. (And my assumption was that was a big factor in why they lifted the mask mandate... because fewer people are capable of spreading it even if they get the virus.) So no, it doesn't matter if you merely get infected. What really matters is how many people can become severely sick as a result of your infection, whether that's you or others. Which is important because these vaccines seem to limit transmission itself. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-br...

sgc 5y ago
If you have the virus in you, there is always potential for illness, transmission, and mutation. Even if chances are reduced, not getting it in the first place is better; and all else equal, a vaccine that does a better job of stopping infection is better than one that does not. Since virus mutations are an unknown, "past performance does not guarantee future results" very much applies. So although I agree how sick people get is very important for a vaccine, and in the short term certainly the most important aspect, it is not the only important criterion to measure. As to why the US CDC lifted the mask mandate while the WHO is recommending vaccinated people wear masks to try to stop the spread of the Delta variant, and there have been many documented cases of large parts of groups of vaccinated people getting the Delta variant as well as other variants - some of whom have gotten seriously ill - I have no comment.
- dataflow 5y ago
  You're splitting hairs at this point. Yes, all else being equal, I'd prefer not to get the virus too. All else being equal there are lots of things I'd prefer over other things, but they turn out to be negligible and stop mattering in the presence of so many bigger fish to fry. And I'm not saying they should stop measuring anything either. They should measure whatever they feel like. All I'm saying is most people's #1 concern (including that of those in healthcare) is "will I/others get severely ill", and IMHO that means that's the information that needs to be conveyed as accurately as possible to the public first and foremost. Especially when there seems to be such a highly likely possibility that many people who merely "have" the virus will feel no effects. Of course nothing is a guarantee and it's even possible the vaccines will turn out even worse than the disease in a few years. Nobody claimed otherwise.
  - sgc 5y ago
    Well this has gotten old. You stated that the current form of measurement was not very good. I pointed out that we care about transmission and mutation for long term eradication of the disease - hence the measurement that is used. It's obviously not negligible or the entire professional world would not use it as a measuring stick for vaccine effectiveness.
    - dataflow 5y ago
      My comment wasn't about what measures the profession uses to do their work. My comment was about what measure they're communicating to us, random members of the public. These need not be the same thing.
      - sgc 5y ago
        That is fair enough. However it would still backfire, because the general public can't listen to anything responsibly. If we report the vaccine is 99.5% effective at preventing serious illness, people will not listen to ANYTHING about being cautious and wearing a mask after they are vaccinated. I predict a nasty wave of COVID this fall/winter including in relatively highly vaccinated areas due to just this attitude already.

sgc 5y ago

If you have the virus in you, there is always potential for illness, transmission, and mutation. Even if chances are reduced, not getting it in the first place is better; and all else equal, a vaccine that does a better job of stopping infection is better than one that does not. Since virus mutations are an unknown, "past performance does not guarantee future results" very much applies. So although I agree how sick people get is very important for a vaccine, and in the short term certainly the most important aspect, it is not the only important criterion to measure. As to why the US CDC lifted the mask mandate while the WHO is recommending vaccinated people wear masks to try to stop the spread of the Delta variant, and there have been many documented cases of large parts of groups of vaccinated people getting the Delta variant as well as other variants - some of whom have gotten seriously ill - I have no comment.

dataflow 5y ago
You're splitting hairs at this point. Yes, all else being equal, I'd prefer not to get the virus too. All else being equal there are lots of things I'd prefer over other things, but they turn out to be negligible and stop mattering in the presence of so many bigger fish to fry. And I'm not saying they should stop measuring anything either. They should measure whatever they feel like. All I'm saying is most people's #1 concern (including that of those in healthcare) is "will I/others get severely ill", and IMHO that means that's the information that needs to be conveyed as accurately as possible to the public first and foremost. Especially when there seems to be such a highly likely possibility that many people who merely "have" the virus will feel no effects. Of course nothing is a guarantee and it's even possible the vaccines will turn out even worse than the disease in a few years. Nobody claimed otherwise.
- sgc 5y ago
  Well this has gotten old. You stated that the current form of measurement was not very good. I pointed out that we care about transmission and mutation for long term eradication of the disease - hence the measurement that is used. It's obviously not negligible or the entire professional world would not use it as a measuring stick for vaccine effectiveness.
  - dataflow 5y ago
    My comment wasn't about what measures the profession uses to do their work. My comment was about what measure they're communicating to us, random members of the public. These need not be the same thing.
    - sgc 5y ago
      That is fair enough. However it would still backfire, because the general public can't listen to anything responsibly. If we report the vaccine is 99.5% effective at preventing serious illness, people will not listen to ANYTHING about being cautious and wearing a mask after they are vaccinated. I predict a nasty wave of COVID this fall/winter including in relatively highly vaccinated areas due to just this attitude already.