3 ms·

The big difference is that measles vaccine has an efficacy of ~100%. [1] From the start of the pandemic, health experts and the media did lots of what I can on

The big difference is that measles vaccine has an efficacy of ~100%. [1] From the start of the pandemic, health experts and the media did lots of what I can only call expectation management and said that any vaccine with over 50% efficacy would be good, more than 60% or 70% would be absolutely marvellous. I think because this was the first time people were tuning in to news about vaccine efficacy, it has skewed people's perception and many think all vaccines are 65-85% effective. In reality, while flu vaccine is like that, the vaccines commonly used for more serious diseases such as measles are close to 100% effective. And this efficacy is not just against death or serious disease, but against catching the disease at all or passing it on. Vaccine efficacy against transmission greatly affects the percentage of the population that need to be vaccinated in order to achieve herd immunity. With low enough efficacy and high enough R value, herd immunity is impossible even if 100% of the population is vaccinated. And some variants of COVID may have high enough R value for this. [1] https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications/healthy-living/canadian-immunization-guide-part-4-active-vaccines/page-12-measles-vaccine.html#p4c11a4 https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications...

helloworld11 5y ago
Despite this, vaccination against COVID coupled with acquired immunity through infection (partial or complete for a certain period of time) will almost certainly do what it has always done throughout history for most diseases, which is reduce the general deadliness across subsequent reinfections. Yes there are some exceptions caused by mutations but those may or may not happen at who knows which time. Global policy absolutely should not repress a vast amount of normal social activity based on such unlikely what-ifs. Even if the current vaccines remain much like the flu vaccine (only partly effective) COVID itself will almost certainly settle into a pattern that's similar to that of the flu, with a certain low-level death toll that becomes part of the annual mortality landscape. Even to begin with, this was never close to a truly lethal disease like smallpox or the plague. More fundamentally, these questions and the policy around them should not be the domain of abstract science to decide for social rules and laws. Other considerations that affect all of us, economic, freedom-related, emotional and social have to be considered. Scientists can easily get carried along by narrow policy advocacy based on their science, without considering external factors. As another comment here mentioned, that's a dangerous mentality for legal decision making.

helloworld11 5y ago

Despite this, vaccination against COVID coupled with acquired immunity through infection (partial or complete for a certain period of time) will almost certainly do what it has always done throughout history for most diseases, which is reduce the general deadliness across subsequent reinfections. Yes there are some exceptions caused by mutations but those may or may not happen at who knows which time. Global policy absolutely should not repress a vast amount of normal social activity based on such unlikely what-ifs. Even if the current vaccines remain much like the flu vaccine (only partly effective) COVID itself will almost certainly settle into a pattern that's similar to that of the flu, with a certain low-level death toll that becomes part of the annual mortality landscape. Even to begin with, this was never close to a truly lethal disease like smallpox or the plague. More fundamentally, these questions and the policy around them should not be the domain of abstract science to decide for social rules and laws. Other considerations that affect all of us, economic, freedom-related, emotional and social have to be considered. Scientists can easily get carried along by narrow policy advocacy based on their science, without considering external factors. As another comment here mentioned, that's a dangerous mentality for legal decision making.