3 ms·

You can figure it with math. Given a starting R0, a vaccination level, and an efficacy, you can figure effective Rt: Rt = R0 * (1 - (vacRate * effRate)) So if

You can figure it with math. Given a starting R0, a vaccination level, and an efficacy, you can figure effective Rt: Rt = R0 * (1 - (vacRate * effRate)) So if Delta R0 is 6, a community is 65% vaccinated, and a vaccine is 80% effective against transmission, then effective Rt would be: Rt = 6 * ( 1 - (.65 * .8)) = 2.88 Real effective Rt includes impact of mitigation levels and natural immunity. So for instance, in Portland OR, Rt is about 1.4. We didn't get hit as hard as surrounding states in the first few rounds, so we don't have as much natural immunity. In contrast, Seattle got hit harder early on; their effective Rt is a little lower - and Silicon Valley is actually pretty close to 1 right now.

colordrops 5y ago
You are assuming that R0 for vaccinated that contract the virus is the same as those who are unvaccinated that contract the virus, which does not appear to be the case. That was my question - how much less do those who are vaccinated and contract the virus infect other people than those who are unvaccinated and contract the virus. That can't be calculated from a single R0 number.
- tunesmith 5y ago
  If you restrict it to the vaccinated population and the unvaccinated population, then you can consider the vaccinated population fully populated, and the unvaccinated population entirely unvaccinated. Vaccinated group: Rt = 6 * ( 1 - (1 * .8)) = 1.2 Unvaccinated group: Rt = 6 * ( 1 - (0 * .8)) = 6 The question of "how much less" is hard to parse, but the point is that even among the vaccinated group (in this scenario), the virus is still spreading and growing exponentially. I suppose if Rt was clearly below 1 for the vaccinated group, that might mean something, but if the groups intermingle, that advantage would be lost pretty quickly.
  - colordrops 5y ago
    I think you are still missing my point. You are using a circular definition of R0. Where did you get that number 6? Is that for a fully unvaccinated population? Are partially vaccinated population? If so, what percentage? Your calculation makes absolutely no sense, it's circular. You can't calculate R0 using R0.
    - tunesmith 5y ago
      No, R0=6 is a given. I'm not calculating R0. R0 for Delta is estimated between 5 and 9.5. I picked 6, just for illustration. Given a starting R0 and a vaccination rate and a vaccine effectiveness, that is how you can calculate effective Rt. There's nothing circular about that. There's no such thing as "R0 within a vaccinated community" - R0 is the starting reproductive number. Effective reproductive number - given various mitigation measures like vaccination, masks, natural immunity, etc - is Rt. You can try the calculations using any other starting R0, from 5 to 9.5 if you stay consistent with estimates of Delta transmissibility. The point is that it's possible that a group of vaccinated people would never have an Rt below 1 from vaccination alone, simply because of the limited vaccine effectiveness against transmission.
      - colordrops 5y ago
        If one population spreads a disease more than another, it makes absolutely no sense that R0 is a constant across all populations, by definition. Perhaps you should look up the meaning of R0.

colordrops 5y ago

You are assuming that R0 for vaccinated that contract the virus is the same as those who are unvaccinated that contract the virus, which does not appear to be the case. That was my question - how much less do those who are vaccinated and contract the virus infect other people than those who are unvaccinated and contract the virus. That can't be calculated from a single R0 number.

tunesmith 5y ago
If you restrict it to the vaccinated population and the unvaccinated population, then you can consider the vaccinated population fully populated, and the unvaccinated population entirely unvaccinated. Vaccinated group: Rt = 6 * ( 1 - (1 * .8)) = 1.2 Unvaccinated group: Rt = 6 * ( 1 - (0 * .8)) = 6 The question of "how much less" is hard to parse, but the point is that even among the vaccinated group (in this scenario), the virus is still spreading and growing exponentially. I suppose if Rt was clearly below 1 for the vaccinated group, that might mean something, but if the groups intermingle, that advantage would be lost pretty quickly.
- colordrops 5y ago
  I think you are still missing my point. You are using a circular definition of R0. Where did you get that number 6? Is that for a fully unvaccinated population? Are partially vaccinated population? If so, what percentage? Your calculation makes absolutely no sense, it's circular. You can't calculate R0 using R0.
  - tunesmith 5y ago
    No, R0=6 is a given. I'm not calculating R0. R0 for Delta is estimated between 5 and 9.5. I picked 6, just for illustration. Given a starting R0 and a vaccination rate and a vaccine effectiveness, that is how you can calculate effective Rt. There's nothing circular about that. There's no such thing as "R0 within a vaccinated community" - R0 is the starting reproductive number. Effective reproductive number - given various mitigation measures like vaccination, masks, natural immunity, etc - is Rt. You can try the calculations using any other starting R0, from 5 to 9.5 if you stay consistent with estimates of Delta transmissibility. The point is that it's possible that a group of vaccinated people would never have an Rt below 1 from vaccination alone, simply because of the limited vaccine effectiveness against transmission.
    - colordrops 5y ago
      If one population spreads a disease more than another, it makes absolutely no sense that R0 is a constant across all populations, by definition. Perhaps you should look up the meaning of R0.