4 ms·

This binary thinking is wrong. Nobody thinks three shots will "stop" the delta variant. They think it'll lower the number of severe cases and deaths.

tboyd47 5y ago
Okay, so if the binary thinking is wrong, why stop at three? Why stop at all? Does the science say we just blast our bodies with as much mRNA as we can get away with?
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  Elementary economic thinking answers this question. Benefits asymptote, so you'll stop at the point where the marginal benefit of an additional shot is less than the marginal financial cost, marginal opportunity cost and marginal cost of side effects all combined. That's definitely not the case before two and may not be the case before three based on data we've seen. It might be the case before four. And this doesn't factor in declining immunity over time. It might make sense to keep taking shots every half a year forever, until COVID mutates into something less deadly perhaps.
  - velcii 5y ago
    >You'll asymptote, so you'll stop at the point where the marginal benefit of an additional shot is less than the marginal financial cost, marginal opportunity cost and marginal cost of side effects all combined. But this is already the case for young people and people who already had covid and recovered, but we don't see them excluded from vaccinations based on their risk profile. So I think there is no reason to think that this logic will be applied more truthfully at some arbitrary time in future.
  - iamthepieman 5y ago
    This is basically what is done with the flu shot although it's a very different mechanism in the actual vaccine.
  - tboyd47 5y ago
    > until COVID mutates into something less deadly perhaps. How do we know that that hasn't already happened? If we don't know, when will we know?
    - fighterpilot 5y ago
      We will know when CFR/IFR goes down among unvaxxed people who haven't had COVID before.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
- velcii 5y ago
  >Does the science say we just blast our bodies with as much mRNA as we can get away with? Science does not decide things that should be applied population wide. Economics does. If it costs less for the state (or entities who have invested in state business) to mass vaccinate its population, then it ll be done, even if it fucks you up in ways that you care about, as an individual. And that is why people should think twice about writing of essential autonomy..
- silisili 5y ago
  Assuming you are asking earnestly, because of diminishing returns. Pfizer has been found to be 90 something percent effective at 2 months. They've noticed it seems to lose about 3% effectiveness per month, leaving you at 70-something percent after 8 months. That's with the data we have today, it could be much higher or lower as more data is collected. To preemptively answer your question - yes, I could see needing to get a booster every 8 months for the foreseeable future.
  - landemva 5y ago
    "Assuming you are asking earnestly, because of diminishing returns." The economics of this are showing increasing returns to the worldwide medical cartels, so this looks like it will continue indefinitely. With broad immunity to product safety laws, why not lay in another billion or two as profit? The C-level company staff will gleefully take home fat bonus checks.

tboyd47 5y ago

Okay, so if the binary thinking is wrong, why stop at three? Why stop at all? Does the science say we just blast our bodies with as much mRNA as we can get away with?

fighterpilot 5y ago
Elementary economic thinking answers this question. Benefits asymptote, so you'll stop at the point where the marginal benefit of an additional shot is less than the marginal financial cost, marginal opportunity cost and marginal cost of side effects all combined. That's definitely not the case before two and may not be the case before three based on data we've seen. It might be the case before four. And this doesn't factor in declining immunity over time. It might make sense to keep taking shots every half a year forever, until COVID mutates into something less deadly perhaps.
- velcii 5y ago
  >You'll asymptote, so you'll stop at the point where the marginal benefit of an additional shot is less than the marginal financial cost, marginal opportunity cost and marginal cost of side effects all combined. But this is already the case for young people and people who already had covid and recovered, but we don't see them excluded from vaccinations based on their risk profile. So I think there is no reason to think that this logic will be applied more truthfully at some arbitrary time in future.
- iamthepieman 5y ago
  This is basically what is done with the flu shot although it's a very different mechanism in the actual vaccine.
- tboyd47 5y ago
  > until COVID mutates into something less deadly perhaps. How do we know that that hasn't already happened? If we don't know, when will we know?
  - fighterpilot 5y ago
    We will know when CFR/IFR goes down among unvaxxed people who haven't had COVID before.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
velcii 5y ago
>Does the science say we just blast our bodies with as much mRNA as we can get away with? Science does not decide things that should be applied population wide. Economics does. If it costs less for the state (or entities who have invested in state business) to mass vaccinate its population, then it ll be done, even if it fucks you up in ways that you care about, as an individual. And that is why people should think twice about writing of essential autonomy..
silisili 5y ago
Assuming you are asking earnestly, because of diminishing returns. Pfizer has been found to be 90 something percent effective at 2 months. They've noticed it seems to lose about 3% effectiveness per month, leaving you at 70-something percent after 8 months. That's with the data we have today, it could be much higher or lower as more data is collected. To preemptively answer your question - yes, I could see needing to get a booster every 8 months for the foreseeable future.
- landemva 5y ago
  "Assuming you are asking earnestly, because of diminishing returns." The economics of this are showing increasing returns to the worldwide medical cartels, so this looks like it will continue indefinitely. With broad immunity to product safety laws, why not lay in another billion or two as profit? The C-level company staff will gleefully take home fat bonus checks.