4 ms·
> The numbers in this paper are a casually spectacular defense of the vaccines Yes the paper is certainly not an attack on vaccines. The crucial implications o
by criticaltinker 5y ago
> The numbers in this paper are a casually spectacular defense of the vaccines
Yes the paper is certainly not an attack on vaccines. The crucial implications of the findings in OP are especially relevant to public health policy:
1) There are diminishing returns to vaccinating individuals who have already acquired immunity through natural infection. The benefits are borderline insignificant. Therefore when faced with a limited supply of vaccines, vaccination strategies should be highly focused on immunologically naive or vulnerable individuals.
2) Compulsory mass vaccination mandates need to accommodate naturally immune individuals. If they do not, such mandates are not only wasteful, but are also effectively ordering unnecessary medical procedures which is a violation of medical ethics and likely a violation of constitutional rights to bodily integrity and informed consent.
3) If vaccine effectiveness at preventing infections continues to be undermined by viral evolution, new formulations will need to be tested and deployed. The mRNA delivery mechanism supports rapid iteration in that respect, but those efforts will still take months at minimum. Consequently it will likely be necessary to supplement mass vaccination with other viral elimination strategies, such as early treatment with multi-drug therapy based on existing and widely available medicines [1][2][3][4][5].
[1] Multifaceted highly targeted sequential multidrug treatment of early ambulatory high-risk SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19)
https://scholarlycommons.henryford.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1139&context=infectiousdiseases_articles https://scholarlycommons.henryford.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...
[2] Timing of Antiviral Treatment Initiation is Critical to Reduce SARS-CoV-2 Viral Load
https://ascpt.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/psp4.12543 https://ascpt.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/psp4.1...
Clinical outcomes after early ambulatory multidrug therapy for high-risk SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) infection
https://rcm.imrpress.com/EN/article/downloadArticleFile.do?attachType=PDF&id=5074 https://rcm.imrpress.com/EN/article/downloadArticleFile.do?a...
[3] Early multidrug treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) and reduced mortality among nursing home (or outpatient/ambulatory) residents
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306987721001419 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03069...
[4] Ivermectin in combination with doxycycline for treating COVID-19 symptoms: a randomized trial
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33983065/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33983065/
[5] Fluvoxamine: A Review of Its Mechanism of Action and Its Role in COVID-19
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphar.2021.652688/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphar.2021.6526...
- bart__ 5y agoOn your second point: The paper shows, when comparing recovered to recovered with single dose, that there are about half as many re-infections. And yes we're talking about 0.3% vs 0.15% reinfection (that's why there is not enough power for significance), but halving the chances may still be important. I'm opposed to compulsory vaccination either way though.