3 ms·

Additionally, there is no mention of the waning efficacy of the vaccine. The efficacy rate drops from ~94% to ~45% after 6 months w/ Pfizer & Moderna). The asse

Additionally, there is no mention of the waning efficacy of the vaccine. The efficacy rate drops from ~94% to ~45% after 6 months w/ Pfizer & Moderna). The assertion: "It appears to be grossly negligent to ignore the vaccinated population as a possible and relevant source of transmission..." completely ignored the very obvious fact that a large percentage of the vaccinated population is entering a low efficacy phase leading up the booster (which actually surpasses the efficacy of the initial 2-dose regimen https://twitter.com/ryanlcooper/status/1461889784369008641 https://twitter.com/ryanlcooper/status/1461889784369008641). The number of breakthrough cases is on the rise as a result of the vaccine's decreased efficacy (https://ehrn.org/articles/breakthrough-covid-19-cases-on-the-rise-still-rare-for-vaccinated-people https://ehrn.org/articles/breakthrough-covid-19-cases-on-the...). It seems intentional, or grossly negligent to use their words, to omit this information.

BlueTie 5y ago
Still, it would seem negligent to bifurcate the population into (vaccinated = low transmission; unvaccinated = high transmission) when the reality is exactly as you describe - a forever variable efficacy rate across the board (transmission, infection, hospitalization, death) thanks to the waning effects of the vaccine + new variants. Having 30,000 vaccinated people pack into a basketball game can't be accepted in good faith when countries are trying to ban unvaccinated people from air travel, working in offices, working in healthcare settings with proper precautions, etc. when vaccination isn't a switch for forever lasting 95% immunity. Hopefully we can get to a point where a vaccine or something else can put an end to this, but until then telling a large group with variable levels of protection that are they safe is enabling the spread of the virus.
- nradov 5y ago
  There is no prospect of stopping the spread. Almost everyone will be exposed eventually and no infection control measures can prevent that. Fortunately the vaccines are pretty effective at preventing deaths, and there are other good treatments as well. https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/94646 https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/94646
blub 5y ago
I really do not understand how any of that is relevant, it seems both you and OP are grasping at straws. The article’s conclusion was “It appears to be grossly negligent to ignore the vaccinated population as a possible and relevant source of transmission when deciding about public health control measures.”. If anything, waning vaccine protection is an argument for that conclusion.

BlueTie 5y ago

Still, it would seem negligent to bifurcate the population into (vaccinated = low transmission; unvaccinated = high transmission) when the reality is exactly as you describe - a forever variable efficacy rate across the board (transmission, infection, hospitalization, death) thanks to the waning effects of the vaccine + new variants. Having 30,000 vaccinated people pack into a basketball game can't be accepted in good faith when countries are trying to ban unvaccinated people from air travel, working in offices, working in healthcare settings with proper precautions, etc. when vaccination isn't a switch for forever lasting 95% immunity. Hopefully we can get to a point where a vaccine or something else can put an end to this, but until then telling a large group with variable levels of protection that are they safe is enabling the spread of the virus.

nradov 5y ago
There is no prospect of stopping the spread. Almost everyone will be exposed eventually and no infection control measures can prevent that. Fortunately the vaccines are pretty effective at preventing deaths, and there are other good treatments as well. https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/94646 https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/94646

blub 5y ago

I really do not understand how any of that is relevant, it seems both you and OP are grasping at straws. The article’s conclusion was “It appears to be grossly negligent to ignore the vaccinated population as a possible and relevant source of transmission when deciding about public health control measures.”. If anything, waning vaccine protection is an argument for that conclusion.