4 ms·

I don't find that too surprising. I can well remember that it was clear from the beginning that the vaccination would probably have a limited temporal scope. It

by M0r13n 5y ago

I don't find that too surprising. I can well remember that it was clear from the beginning that the vaccination would probably have a limited temporal scope. It was just not clear how long the vaccination effect would actually last. Now we know that very likely after 6 months a significant part of the protective effect has passed. Does anyone know what this looks like in recovered people who have gone through COVID disease?

colechristensen 5y ago
Immunity seems to have a dependence on the intensity of infection. A mild or asymptomatic infection confers less immunity than a serious infection. This kind of thing will have a few dimensions and a lot of uncertainty to it.
- landemva 5y ago
  Do you have a published reference that natural immunity depends on infection intensity?
mewpmewp2 5y ago
I think many governments left their people an impression that those vaccines would end the pandemic and that vaccinated can't get the disease at all pretty much.
- libertine 5y ago
  But that's the problem os current politics, while some bluntly lie, others "protect" people from the truth/reality. I don't see why we couldn't trust people into telling them that vaccines are a great tool, but we will still need to keep using extra measures - like mask wearing - as a means to keep preventing infections. They chose to create the narrative that the vaccine would be the cure, now it will backlash and create more doubt in people. Imo the right approach should have been tolerance zero.
  - mewpmewp2 5y ago
    Yeah, they probably figured this was needed to motivate more people to vaccinate.
- throaway46546 5y ago
  >We can kind of almost see the end. We're vaccinating so very fast, our data from the CDC today suggests, you know, that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don't get sick, and that it's not just in the clinical trials but it's also in real world data. https://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/transcript-rachel-maddow-show-3-29-21-n1262442 https://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/transcript-rachel-maddow-s...

by M0r13n 5y ago

colechristensen 5y ago

Immunity seems to have a dependence on the intensity of infection. A mild or asymptomatic infection confers less immunity than a serious infection. This kind of thing will have a few dimensions and a lot of uncertainty to it.

landemva 5y ago
Do you have a published reference that natural immunity depends on infection intensity?

mewpmewp2 5y ago

I think many governments left their people an impression that those vaccines would end the pandemic and that vaccinated can't get the disease at all pretty much.

libertine 5y ago
But that's the problem os current politics, while some bluntly lie, others "protect" people from the truth/reality. I don't see why we couldn't trust people into telling them that vaccines are a great tool, but we will still need to keep using extra measures - like mask wearing - as a means to keep preventing infections. They chose to create the narrative that the vaccine would be the cure, now it will backlash and create more doubt in people. Imo the right approach should have been tolerance zero.
- mewpmewp2 5y ago
  Yeah, they probably figured this was needed to motivate more people to vaccinate.
throaway46546 5y ago
>We can kind of almost see the end. We're vaccinating so very fast, our data from the CDC today suggests, you know, that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don't get sick, and that it's not just in the clinical trials but it's also in real world data. https://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/transcript-rachel-maddow-show-3-29-21-n1262442 https://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/transcript-rachel-maddow-s...