3 ms·
> First, I'd check their source for saying that the number of cases in vaccinated people is growing. I mean, of course it is - 2 is more than 1, so whatever num
by kypro 5y ago
> First, I'd check their source for saying that the number of cases in vaccinated people is growing. I mean, of course it is - 2 is more than 1, so whatever number we are at, it is growing... but is the actual percentage growing? Or is it just the expected rate?
This wasn't a claim they made to be fair to them. This is just what I understand from what I've been reading about effectiveness of the vaccines in regards to the delta variant. I've read they're effective against it, but slightly less so and presumably selection pressure will continue this trend now vaccines are being deployed on mass.
> So could there be long-term consequences? Sure. Does that change what our actions should be today? No.
Does it not? To be clear, I'm not personally concerned about this in an anti-vax sense, but I am a little concerned we could enter a kind of arms race against evolution and end up creating something potentially worse down the line unless we're careful about how we deploy vaccines and combat COVID. You seem to be suggesting we should just look past these risks and hope for the best (please correct me if you feel I'm misrepresenting you), but surely if we're aware these risks exist we should be attempting to reduce the likelihood of them occurring?
- codingdave 5y ago> You seem to be suggesting we should just look past these risks and hope for the best. Yep, you read that right. Maybe I am being too careless about my approach, but... think of it like a potential car wreck. If someone is stopped in front of me, I slam on the brakes, regardless of whether the guy behind me might rear-end me. We have to fix the problems in front of us, with the best knowledge and options we have available. Certainly if we can also avoid negative consequences at the same time, yes, we should avoid them. No arguments there. But I'm not an expert in this field, so I trust the scientists who are experts and who are telling us this is our best move.
- gus_massa 5y ago[Sorry for the late reply, but I hope it's useful for the OP:] I agree. But it's interesting to look at the history of the polio vaccine. Oversimplifying, the first vaccine was injectable and "leaky"[1] (and a huge success), the second vaccine was oral and not leaky. So even if we get a leaky vaccine now, we can improve it or make another in five years. Anyway, the oral vaccine has other problems, so when a country has no cases for a long time, the country use only the injectable one. More details and accuracy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine [1] Is "leaky" the correct technical term?