4 ms·

> This is reinforced by some pro-vaccine people (incorrectly) claiming we can eradicate the virus through high vaccination rate A high vaccination rate of high

> This is reinforced by some pro-vaccine people (incorrectly) claiming we can eradicate the virus through high vaccination rate A high vaccination rate of high efficacy vaccine(s) can most certainly eradicate a disease. A virus can't do a whole lot without a host to incubate and spread it. If potential hosts can't meaningfully incubate or spread the virus, it stops spreading. Once the good vaccines (80+% efficacy) became available, if they could have magically been distributed to everyone, COVID would be entirely contained by now and on the way to being eradicated in the population at large. Only the most remote reservoirs would contain the virus at transmissible levels. That is not saying some 70% vaccination rate will eradicate the virus. It will bring the infection rates down to below pandemic and epidemic levels. If someone is unvaccinated for medical reasons but everyone around them is vaccinated the virus has a pretty huge moat to cross to infect them. Even when the vaccinated get a breakthrough infection the odds of it being serious are very low as is its transmissibility.

codycraven 5y ago
I don't know the stats behind it, but I've heard from news that those with the vaccine do still host the virus when exposed and even continue to pass it along (although they experience lesser/no symptoms). If vaccinated people do become infected at the same or similar rate to unvaccinated (and a whole lot of other assumptions), it almost seems like there is a scenario where the vaccine could be worse than the virus because we're essentially creating many Typhoid Marys that continue to host and spread the virus unaware that they're contagious, giving the virus a massive pool to mutate within.
- giantrobot 5y ago
  > If vaccinated people do become infected at the same or similar rate to unvaccinated (and a whole lot of other assumptions) They do not though. You getting sick from any virus is a function of your particular immune system, the viral load you're exposed to, the virus' infection mechanisms, and your manner of exposure. Vaccines affect the first two points. They train your immune system to recognize the virus as something its seen before and it has ready antibodies to fight. Your immune system responds more efficiently to the virus and neutralizes it faster meaning that any point during your "infection" you've just got fewer virus particles to shed and spread to others. If you're exposed to a high viral load you might become symptomatic, your white blood cells can only work so fast, with a breakthrough infection but since your immune system is pre-trained for the virus it'll be a shorter and likely a less severe infection than if you were unvaccinated. The Typhoid Marys you're describing are the massive pools of completely unvaccinated people getting sick. The unvaccinated remain infected longer and end up producing more copies of the virus from their infected cells. If the virus generates a beneficial mutation (named variant) after a trillion replications and each unvaccinated person produces a billion replications (made up round numbers) then we'd expect a variant every thousand people infected. If a vaccinated person only produces a million replications then it'll take far longer for a vaccinated population to generate a variant. You may never even see a variant emerge if the infection rate drops below pandemic and epidemic levels.
Ancapistani 5y ago
AFAIK, it’s generally accepted that this particular virus has multiple animal reservoirs. In the US, even white-tailed deer can be carriers: https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/newsroom/stakeholder-info/stakeholder-messages/wildlife-damage-news/deer-sars https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/newsroom/stakeholder-info/s... Unless I’m missing something here, 100% vaccination of human beings with a 100% efficacy vaccine would not eliminate COVID-19.
- giantrobot 5y ago
  Animal reservoirs are usually only meaningful if there's significant interaction with those animals and humans and a meaningful ability for the virus to spread between species. Most people don't snuggle up next to a white tailed deer every night so the chance of catching COVID from one is pretty low. Even if clusters emerged from animal reservoirs, a vaccinated human population would help keep the r0 value below one and allow for containment. COVID had an r0 above one and little meaningful mitigations against its spread early on so it quickly got to epidemic and then pandemic levels.
  - rory 5y ago
    The claim being debated is eradication, so containment is a serious goalpost shift.
    - giantrobot 5y ago
      Eliminating a virus is eliminating community spread i.e. containment of infection clusters.
      - rory 5y ago
        That's not eradication. See "Definitions": https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su48a7.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su48a7.htm
rory 5y ago
It seems like you are basically agreeing with me while pretending to disagree. Of course we could eradicate the virus with a magically high vaccination rate using a magically effective vaccine. But that's not possible in our current reality. By insinuating that we can eradicate the virus using current technology and current infrastructure, it causes vaccine-hesitant people to see their choice as a type of prisoner dilemma. When in reality, their choice is more like "do I want to get initial immunity via the vaccine, or do I want to (eventually) get it via the virus.
- giantrobot 5y ago
  We can eliminate viruses with current technology and current infrastructure. We've done it with several diseases already. The vaccine "hesitant" don't have a prisoner's dilemma. They're not understanding or being misled about probabilities. A symptomatic COVID infection has a fairly high probability of a "long haul" case and a smaller but still relatively high probability of hospitalization. It should be painfully clear that with a high infection rate the hospitalization rate is high enough to flood hospitals and cause follow-on effects like non-COVID emergencies being unable to receive proper treatment. Waiting to gain immunity to COVID through natural exposure has a high chance of a long haul condition, hospitalization, and death. On the other hand the vaccines have a chance of side effects so low as to be effectively none. Once vaccinated the chance of breakthrough symptomatic infection is low and the chance of long haul conditions, hospitalization, and death are extremely low. There's no dilemma about vaccines for anyone being rational. Even if you're hesitant about mRNA vaccines (despite hundreds of millions of doses with no problems) there's viral vector vaccines readily available.
  - rory 5y ago
    Again, it seems like you're basically agreeing with the trappings of argument. I am talking specifically about eradicating SARS-COV-2, not eliminating a virus in abstract. It's obvious that there are some viruses we are able to eradicate, but it is also obvious that there are some we are not. The rest of your comment is punching ghosts. Keep in mind that most people are not rational, and empathizing with irrational people is a more effective method of influence than scorn.

codycraven 5y ago

I don't know the stats behind it, but I've heard from news that those with the vaccine do still host the virus when exposed and even continue to pass it along (although they experience lesser/no symptoms). If vaccinated people do become infected at the same or similar rate to unvaccinated (and a whole lot of other assumptions), it almost seems like there is a scenario where the vaccine could be worse than the virus because we're essentially creating many Typhoid Marys that continue to host and spread the virus unaware that they're contagious, giving the virus a massive pool to mutate within.

giantrobot 5y ago
> If vaccinated people do become infected at the same or similar rate to unvaccinated (and a whole lot of other assumptions) They do not though. You getting sick from any virus is a function of your particular immune system, the viral load you're exposed to, the virus' infection mechanisms, and your manner of exposure. Vaccines affect the first two points. They train your immune system to recognize the virus as something its seen before and it has ready antibodies to fight. Your immune system responds more efficiently to the virus and neutralizes it faster meaning that any point during your "infection" you've just got fewer virus particles to shed and spread to others. If you're exposed to a high viral load you might become symptomatic, your white blood cells can only work so fast, with a breakthrough infection but since your immune system is pre-trained for the virus it'll be a shorter and likely a less severe infection than if you were unvaccinated. The Typhoid Marys you're describing are the massive pools of completely unvaccinated people getting sick. The unvaccinated remain infected longer and end up producing more copies of the virus from their infected cells. If the virus generates a beneficial mutation (named variant) after a trillion replications and each unvaccinated person produces a billion replications (made up round numbers) then we'd expect a variant every thousand people infected. If a vaccinated person only produces a million replications then it'll take far longer for a vaccinated population to generate a variant. You may never even see a variant emerge if the infection rate drops below pandemic and epidemic levels.

Ancapistani 5y ago

AFAIK, it’s generally accepted that this particular virus has multiple animal reservoirs. In the US, even white-tailed deer can be carriers: https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/newsroom/stakeholder-info/stakeholder-messages/wildlife-damage-news/deer-sars https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/newsroom/stakeholder-info/s... Unless I’m missing something here, 100% vaccination of human beings with a 100% efficacy vaccine would not eliminate COVID-19.

giantrobot 5y ago
Animal reservoirs are usually only meaningful if there's significant interaction with those animals and humans and a meaningful ability for the virus to spread between species. Most people don't snuggle up next to a white tailed deer every night so the chance of catching COVID from one is pretty low. Even if clusters emerged from animal reservoirs, a vaccinated human population would help keep the r0 value below one and allow for containment. COVID had an r0 above one and little meaningful mitigations against its spread early on so it quickly got to epidemic and then pandemic levels.
- rory 5y ago
  The claim being debated is eradication, so containment is a serious goalpost shift.
  - giantrobot 5y ago
    Eliminating a virus is eliminating community spread i.e. containment of infection clusters.
    - rory 5y ago
      That's not eradication. See "Definitions": https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su48a7.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su48a7.htm

rory 5y ago

It seems like you are basically agreeing with me while pretending to disagree. Of course we could eradicate the virus with a magically high vaccination rate using a magically effective vaccine. But that's not possible in our current reality. By insinuating that we can eradicate the virus using current technology and current infrastructure, it causes vaccine-hesitant people to see their choice as a type of prisoner dilemma. When in reality, their choice is more like "do I want to get initial immunity via the vaccine, or do I want to (eventually) get it via the virus.

giantrobot 5y ago
We can eliminate viruses with current technology and current infrastructure. We've done it with several diseases already. The vaccine "hesitant" don't have a prisoner's dilemma. They're not understanding or being misled about probabilities. A symptomatic COVID infection has a fairly high probability of a "long haul" case and a smaller but still relatively high probability of hospitalization. It should be painfully clear that with a high infection rate the hospitalization rate is high enough to flood hospitals and cause follow-on effects like non-COVID emergencies being unable to receive proper treatment. Waiting to gain immunity to COVID through natural exposure has a high chance of a long haul condition, hospitalization, and death. On the other hand the vaccines have a chance of side effects so low as to be effectively none. Once vaccinated the chance of breakthrough symptomatic infection is low and the chance of long haul conditions, hospitalization, and death are extremely low. There's no dilemma about vaccines for anyone being rational. Even if you're hesitant about mRNA vaccines (despite hundreds of millions of doses with no problems) there's viral vector vaccines readily available.
- rory 5y ago
  Again, it seems like you're basically agreeing with the trappings of argument. I am talking specifically about eradicating SARS-COV-2, not eliminating a virus in abstract. It's obvious that there are some viruses we are able to eradicate, but it is also obvious that there are some we are not. The rest of your comment is punching ghosts. Keep in mind that most people are not rational, and empathizing with irrational people is a more effective method of influence than scorn.