6 ms·

> 76-92 percent after three injections That's not a lot. Like sure if herd immunity was on the table it might have been, but lyme has an animal reservoir. Like

by im3w1l 5y ago

> 76-92 percent after three injections That's not a lot. Like sure if herd immunity was on the table it might have been, but lyme has an animal reservoir. Like if I had 76% immunity I would still panic every time I saw a tick, so then what is the point?

only_as_i_fall 5y ago
Doesn't this mean that if I were to get bitten by an infected tick the odds of contracting limes disease would be at least 4x lower? Seems like a big difference to me even at the low end of the range. Maybe I'm misapplying the efficacy stat though?
- im3w1l 5y ago
  You would still have to monitor for ticks and if symptoms appear (more rare) you would treat it with antibiotics and be fine. This is a minor benefit.
  - edmundsauto 5y ago
    You comment makes it sound like the worst part of Lyme disease is the anxiety over having to check for ticks. This is inaccurate - preventing 3/4 of Lyme infections is a massive net win. Lyme disease can be horrible. The value is in vaccine is to prevent most cases, not to eliminate the annoying tick checks.
  - Talanes 5y ago
    >You would still have to monitor for ticks This part is true no matter how effective the vaccine is. Ticks are gross, diseased or not.
    - daddylongstroke 5y ago
      Ticks are insects, not gross. They're just animals looking to eat, just like you and I.
      - Talanes 5y ago
        If a kitten latched onto my skin to just hang out and engorge itself, that'd be gross too. Being gross isn't a matter of intent or etymology, it's an action.
        daddylongstroke 5y ago
        You're making judgments about animals that are wholly inappropriate for their "actions". Seems to be trendy on HN to call things gross lately...maybe its the new generation?
  - ganafagol 5y ago
    > you would treat it with antibiotics and be fine. Funny how you are confirming the sentiment in the article. I'd suggest you read it.
ralusek 5y ago
The point would be that every time you see a tick, you could be 76-92% less worried.
ptmcc 5y ago
That's in the ballpark of pretty much every effective vaccine ever deployed. They are never 100%. This misconception seems to have gotten prevalent with COVID and the mRNA vaccines being "only" 90-95% effective. That is staggeringly good, better than most.
- all_usernames 5y ago
  > mRNA vaccines being "only" 90-95% effective Against alpha...
  - daddylongstroke 5y ago
    ...and only if you're relatively healthy already, not obese, no history of blood clots or heart conditions, and are consistently getting between 6-8 hours of sleep two weeks before and after getting your vaccines.
majormajor 5y ago
"Not panicking" is not the goal of the vaccine. The instinctive reaction of the human brain around panicking the same amount over an X chance versus a 4X chance of something happening is a brain bug, not a reason to avoid a vaccine. That 76% (or more) reduction in risk of your panic turning into serious disease is the reason to get the vaccine even if you're still panicky.
evanmoran 5y ago
I understand where you are coming from. You will be worried about ticks with or without the vaccine. I will too! But I think the vaccine isn’t for making you stop protecting yourself from ticks (it can’t do that, as you noted). The important part is it’s a small poke for a better chance at staying healthy. If you are worried in both cases, the question becomes is the time/cost to get the shot worth the result. So if you walk in the woods a lot the answer is very likely yes. If you never go near ticks then maybe not. Another way to think about it is if there was a vaccine to stop car accidents that is only 75% effective, is it worth getting the shot even though I’ll still be afraid of car accidents? Absolutely! The shot is unbelievably easy to get and probably cheap. It doesn’t solve everything, but it is so easy to do it’s hard not to be worth it.
- im3w1l 5y ago
  Your calculus forgets about side effects. If the gain is very minor then it only takes minor side effects to swing the balance.
  - ganafagol 5y ago
    You are welcome to compare the number of cases of suspected-but-not-confirmed side effects with the number of people getting Lyme every year. You may find a difference of a few orders of magnitude.

by im3w1l 5y ago

only_as_i_fall 5y ago

Doesn't this mean that if I were to get bitten by an infected tick the odds of contracting limes disease would be at least 4x lower? Seems like a big difference to me even at the low end of the range. Maybe I'm misapplying the efficacy stat though?

im3w1l 5y ago
You would still have to monitor for ticks and if symptoms appear (more rare) you would treat it with antibiotics and be fine. This is a minor benefit.
- edmundsauto 5y ago
  You comment makes it sound like the worst part of Lyme disease is the anxiety over having to check for ticks. This is inaccurate - preventing 3/4 of Lyme infections is a massive net win. Lyme disease can be horrible. The value is in vaccine is to prevent most cases, not to eliminate the annoying tick checks.
- Talanes 5y ago
  >You would still have to monitor for ticks This part is true no matter how effective the vaccine is. Ticks are gross, diseased or not.
  - daddylongstroke 5y ago
    Ticks are insects, not gross. They're just animals looking to eat, just like you and I.
    - Talanes 5y ago
      If a kitten latched onto my skin to just hang out and engorge itself, that'd be gross too. Being gross isn't a matter of intent or etymology, it's an action.
      - daddylongstroke 5y ago
        You're making judgments about animals that are wholly inappropriate for their "actions". Seems to be trendy on HN to call things gross lately...maybe its the new generation?
- ganafagol 5y ago
  > you would treat it with antibiotics and be fine. Funny how you are confirming the sentiment in the article. I'd suggest you read it.

ralusek 5y ago

The point would be that every time you see a tick, you could be 76-92% less worried.

ptmcc 5y ago

That's in the ballpark of pretty much every effective vaccine ever deployed. They are never 100%. This misconception seems to have gotten prevalent with COVID and the mRNA vaccines being "only" 90-95% effective. That is staggeringly good, better than most.

all_usernames 5y ago
> mRNA vaccines being "only" 90-95% effective Against alpha...
- daddylongstroke 5y ago
  ...and only if you're relatively healthy already, not obese, no history of blood clots or heart conditions, and are consistently getting between 6-8 hours of sleep two weeks before and after getting your vaccines.

majormajor 5y ago

"Not panicking" is not the goal of the vaccine. The instinctive reaction of the human brain around panicking the same amount over an X chance versus a 4X chance of something happening is a brain bug, not a reason to avoid a vaccine. That 76% (or more) reduction in risk of your panic turning into serious disease is the reason to get the vaccine even if you're still panicky.

evanmoran 5y ago

I understand where you are coming from. You will be worried about ticks with or without the vaccine. I will too! But I think the vaccine isn’t for making you stop protecting yourself from ticks (it can’t do that, as you noted). The important part is it’s a small poke for a better chance at staying healthy. If you are worried in both cases, the question becomes is the time/cost to get the shot worth the result. So if you walk in the woods a lot the answer is very likely yes. If you never go near ticks then maybe not. Another way to think about it is if there was a vaccine to stop car accidents that is only 75% effective, is it worth getting the shot even though I’ll still be afraid of car accidents? Absolutely! The shot is unbelievably easy to get and probably cheap. It doesn’t solve everything, but it is so easy to do it’s hard not to be worth it.

im3w1l 5y ago
Your calculus forgets about side effects. If the gain is very minor then it only takes minor side effects to swing the balance.
- ganafagol 5y ago
  You are welcome to compare the number of cases of suspected-but-not-confirmed side effects with the number of people getting Lyme every year. You may find a difference of a few orders of magnitude.