5 ms·

I think the main difference is one has to necessarily take on vaccine risk without catching covid, so you balance chance of vax complications vs chance of getti

I think the main difference is one has to necessarily take on vaccine risk without catching covid, so you balance chance of vax complications vs chance of getting covid multiplied by chance of getting bad case of covid. So 1 * P(bad vax) vs P(getting covid) * P(bad covid case). While most of other proposed treatments are after you already got it. So P(bad side effects) vs 1 * P(bad covid case). Depending on your priors and health, those balance very differently. Also, if the new pill ends up as effective as they say it is, there is no reason to push for 100% vax uptake anymore -- it would turn covid into a slightly more dangerous cold.

orra 5y ago
> one has to necessarily take on vaccine risk without catching covid Thankfully that risk is tiny. > Also, if the new pill ends up as effective as they say it is, there is no reason to push for 100% vax uptake anymore -- it would turn covid into a slightly more dangerous cold. No, vaccination remains far cheaper. Mass vaccination also reduces the risk of mutation, and of infection others. If everybody gets vaccinated AND this anti viral is widely available for those infected, COVID will be well and truly deranged.
- effie 5y ago
  > Mass vaccination also reduces the risk of mutation, and of infection others. Only if the vaccine is effective enough. With these moderately effective vaccines, there is a danger that breakthrough cases will generate new variants.
  - orra 5y ago
    This is drivel. First, even against Delta, the vaccines remain some of the most effective vaccines ever, at preventing severe disease. Second, COVID just doesn't mutate that much considering how prevalent it is, in part due to RNA proofreading. Moreover, no, emperical evidence shows the neutralizing antibody effect of vaccines decreases the spread of variants.
    - daddylongstroke 5y ago
      > Moreover, no, emperical evidence shows the neutralizing antibody effect of vaccines decreases the spread of variants. The world started vaccinating in January - 10 months ago. You won't even begin to know the true effectiveness of the vaccine and its outcomes until at least one more year goes by ey? Then you can begin to compare year over year health outcomes in highly vaccinated groups, vs unvaccinated, in the same region (same viral seasonality profile), across age groups. I can't wait to see regional all cause mortality with accurately age (and other vars) adjusted data between the vaxxed and unvaxxed.
jollybean 5y ago
Well, kind of. 1) There really is no such thing as 'Vaccine Risk' in the material sense, any more than we would us language such as 'Flying Risk'. Esp. in the US where thee is no AZ vaccine, the risk is negligible. 'The Vaccine Risk' in the minds of many people isn't consistent with the reality, and it's a major communications problem. Anti-vaxxers are internalizing and propagandizing a degree of risk that just isn't real, leading to bad health outcomes. Sure, technically, it's a risk, but so is anything else. 2) 'No push for 100% Vaccine' - maybe not for '100%' but we really need to push hard on vaccines. COVID is not scary because it's excessively deadly. It's scary because it's excessively viral, meaning, it's a community disease, less so an individual disease. Stopping COVID means stoping the spread, not trying to cure people when they get it. With 95% vaccination, R0 drops below 1 and so hospitalization rates are low, we can focus on the hard cases. With 0% vaccination and a 85% effective drug, well, 'everyone' will get COVID, and a scary number of them will die. The 'Best Answer' by far in a world where vaccines are very safe, very cheap, and very effective - is to get 'as many as we can' vaccinated. And then use the expensive drugs on the hard cases.
- mensetmanusman 5y ago
  For endemic viruses that also spread through domestic pets 95% becomes unobtainable unless we start going after the 100,000,000 domestic pets in the US alone.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    We don't know the likelihood that it spreads through pets, pets also have owners who make up the entirety of their interactions (ie pets don't take the bus, go to restaurants, go to work or school) so of owners are vaxxed we're kosher. As for endemic, yes, a problem, but of a different kind.
- UnFleshedOne 5y ago
  All risks are relative, yes. Covid risk is also negligible for some groups (like small children), it is very likely very comparable or smaller than the tiny vaccine risk. There is a lot of propagandizing degrees of risk across all tribes -- democrats wildly overestimating risk of hospitalization and republicans wildly underestimating it. But what about 75% vaccination (lots of countries are there already or very close) and 85% effective drug? How much effort much be spent on hunting down every last antivaxxer and how many side effects of that are acceptable? (like destroying public support for vaccine mandates in general, creating nice shiny tools for the next wannabe authoritarian, etc)
atleta 5y ago
This is true, however we are pretty certain about the numbers and they are overwhelmingly point towards getting the vaccine. (Maybe except for the very young, by witch I mean under 25 maybe under 20. But I don't know those numbers, so that might even not be a question either.) One thing to keep in mind is that P(getting covid) is about 1. But for sure greater than 50%, especially if people don't vaccinate in large numbers (I mean others, of course) and if we do away with masks and restrictions. When doing this kind of comparison, vaccines are tricky, because if you vaccinate close to 100%, then you'll have very few cases, so P(getting covid) will be rather small and then it will seem that the vaccines may not be worth it. But if you don't, then it will be high and that's what you should base your decision on. BTW, this is why antivaxxery could become such a phenomenon lately (even before covid): too few children died or got paralyzed in the past quite a few decades so the usual diseases somehow started to seem not such a big deal. Because people just didn't experience the other side of the equation anymore. Also, on a side note, I'd expect that an antiviral will have more side effects than a vaccine.

orra 5y ago

> one has to necessarily take on vaccine risk without catching covid Thankfully that risk is tiny. > Also, if the new pill ends up as effective as they say it is, there is no reason to push for 100% vax uptake anymore -- it would turn covid into a slightly more dangerous cold. No, vaccination remains far cheaper. Mass vaccination also reduces the risk of mutation, and of infection others. If everybody gets vaccinated AND this anti viral is widely available for those infected, COVID will be well and truly deranged.

effie 5y ago
> Mass vaccination also reduces the risk of mutation, and of infection others. Only if the vaccine is effective enough. With these moderately effective vaccines, there is a danger that breakthrough cases will generate new variants.
- orra 5y ago
  This is drivel. First, even against Delta, the vaccines remain some of the most effective vaccines ever, at preventing severe disease. Second, COVID just doesn't mutate that much considering how prevalent it is, in part due to RNA proofreading. Moreover, no, emperical evidence shows the neutralizing antibody effect of vaccines decreases the spread of variants.
  - daddylongstroke 5y ago
    > Moreover, no, emperical evidence shows the neutralizing antibody effect of vaccines decreases the spread of variants. The world started vaccinating in January - 10 months ago. You won't even begin to know the true effectiveness of the vaccine and its outcomes until at least one more year goes by ey? Then you can begin to compare year over year health outcomes in highly vaccinated groups, vs unvaccinated, in the same region (same viral seasonality profile), across age groups. I can't wait to see regional all cause mortality with accurately age (and other vars) adjusted data between the vaxxed and unvaxxed.

jollybean 5y ago

Well, kind of. 1) There really is no such thing as 'Vaccine Risk' in the material sense, any more than we would us language such as 'Flying Risk'. Esp. in the US where thee is no AZ vaccine, the risk is negligible. 'The Vaccine Risk' in the minds of many people isn't consistent with the reality, and it's a major communications problem. Anti-vaxxers are internalizing and propagandizing a degree of risk that just isn't real, leading to bad health outcomes. Sure, technically, it's a risk, but so is anything else. 2) 'No push for 100% Vaccine' - maybe not for '100%' but we really need to push hard on vaccines. COVID is not scary because it's excessively deadly. It's scary because it's excessively viral, meaning, it's a community disease, less so an individual disease. Stopping COVID means stoping the spread, not trying to cure people when they get it. With 95% vaccination, R0 drops below 1 and so hospitalization rates are low, we can focus on the hard cases. With 0% vaccination and a 85% effective drug, well, 'everyone' will get COVID, and a scary number of them will die. The 'Best Answer' by far in a world where vaccines are very safe, very cheap, and very effective - is to get 'as many as we can' vaccinated. And then use the expensive drugs on the hard cases.

mensetmanusman 5y ago
For endemic viruses that also spread through domestic pets 95% becomes unobtainable unless we start going after the 100,000,000 domestic pets in the US alone.
- jollybean 5y ago
  We don't know the likelihood that it spreads through pets, pets also have owners who make up the entirety of their interactions (ie pets don't take the bus, go to restaurants, go to work or school) so of owners are vaxxed we're kosher. As for endemic, yes, a problem, but of a different kind.
UnFleshedOne 5y ago
All risks are relative, yes. Covid risk is also negligible for some groups (like small children), it is very likely very comparable or smaller than the tiny vaccine risk. There is a lot of propagandizing degrees of risk across all tribes -- democrats wildly overestimating risk of hospitalization and republicans wildly underestimating it. But what about 75% vaccination (lots of countries are there already or very close) and 85% effective drug? How much effort much be spent on hunting down every last antivaxxer and how many side effects of that are acceptable? (like destroying public support for vaccine mandates in general, creating nice shiny tools for the next wannabe authoritarian, etc)

atleta 5y ago

This is true, however we are pretty certain about the numbers and they are overwhelmingly point towards getting the vaccine. (Maybe except for the very young, by witch I mean under 25 maybe under 20. But I don't know those numbers, so that might even not be a question either.) One thing to keep in mind is that P(getting covid) is about 1. But for sure greater than 50%, especially if people don't vaccinate in large numbers (I mean others, of course) and if we do away with masks and restrictions. When doing this kind of comparison, vaccines are tricky, because if you vaccinate close to 100%, then you'll have very few cases, so P(getting covid) will be rather small and then it will seem that the vaccines may not be worth it. But if you don't, then it will be high and that's what you should base your decision on. BTW, this is why antivaxxery could become such a phenomenon lately (even before covid): too few children died or got paralyzed in the past quite a few decades so the usual diseases somehow started to seem not such a big deal. Because people just didn't experience the other side of the equation anymore. Also, on a side note, I'd expect that an antiviral will have more side effects than a vaccine.