> Yes. That's why the epidemiological consensus is for vaccinated people to keep wearing masks, particularly indoors. There's still no reason to believe that a

> Yes. That's why the epidemiological consensus is for vaccinated people to keep wearing masks, particularly indoors. There's still no reason to believe that adding mask wearing to a leaky vaccine will reduce R0 below one. We'll probably find out though since we're running a huge, albeit uncontrolled, phase 3 clinical trial right now. We do know on the other hand that a sterilizing vaccine can guarantee herd immunity on its own with vaccination levels well below 100%. > Excuse me from what I'm going to say, but the Marek comparison is an antivax favourite from the gross misunderstanding that you seem to share with them. If I were an anti-vaxxer why would I be advocating a (sterilizing) vaccine? And that kind of passive aggressive insult is a common habit of the kind of midwit who vastly overestimates his own intelligence, but let's not waste time on ad hominems shall we? I simply gave the Marek scenario as conclusive proof that imperfect vaccines can select for increasingly lethal variants. It serves as a kind of limit case where everything is maximally unfavorable. Now the question of concern is can similar viral selection occur when some of the variables, such as infection duration of vaccinated individuals, are different. We cannot conclusively answer in the negative with the data we have, so a tail risk exists. > Yeah, this goes deeper into tinfoil hat territory. No, it goes further into considering tail risk scenarios, which is something that most people are reliably bad at. > Luckily there are dozens of vaccines from all around the world by now, I think competition will do the rest. I will be greatly reassured when competition creates a sterilizing vaccine that eradicates SARS-CoV-2.