5 ms·

Widespread vaccination dramatically reduces the rate at which the virus spreads, by more than 80%. It's not a binary does/doesn't stop spreading. https://www.n

by simonh 5y ago

Widespread vaccination dramatically reduces the rate at which the virus spreads, by more than 80%. It's not a binary does/doesn't stop spreading. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02054-z https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02054-z Vaccination rates in the US have been abysmal by developed world status, precisely because so many of you don't think vaccination works. It does work to dramatically slow spreading, but only if enough people take it up.

adam_arthur 5y ago
Yes, of course. But the virus is endemic and vaccines will not stop it from being caught by everybody at some point. You can't lockdown the virus away. You can't stop the spread by canceling flights either. Just seems like awful policymaking driven by virtue signaling. Covid is here forever, and that's life.
- junon 5y ago
  Seems we've already forgotten the whole point of lockdowns the first time: to prevent overloading the hospital systems. In places where hospitals were under capacity, deaths were significantly lower. Germany is a good example of this. Overwhelmed healthcare systems, by comparison, saw lots more deaths. Once it escaped Wuhan the goal was no longer to contain, but to control and soften the impact.
- TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
  This is nonsense. Vaccination stopped smallpox and polio. Failure at Zero Covid is the result of poor, anti-realistic policies and attitudes - like yours, for example. It's not because it's impossible, either economically or scientifically.
  - beagle3 5y ago
    This is nonsense. Vaccination did not stop measles or whooping cough, and has not even reduced their spread (only their symptoms) despite decades of availability. Both of their vaccines are leaky - just like the Covid vaccine.
    - loeg 5y ago
      What? Measles is almost entirely constrained to the unvaccinated and we vaccinate babies for pertussis at 2 months.
      - beagle3 5y ago
        Sorry, meant to write flu. Not sure why I wrote measles. Measles vaccine is, indeed, likely the best vaccine ever in terms of efficiency and safety. It’s also sterilizing rather than leaky.
- FourHand451 5y ago
  > But the virus is endemic and vaccines will not stop it from being caught by everybody at some point. Plenty of people live their whole lives without catching smallpox or polio. We have/can develop effective vaccines for COVID. Why should it be different?
  - beagle3 5y ago
    No people have gone through their life without catching the cold and very few without catching the flu at least once, despite having flu vaccines for a few decades now. Not all viruses are the same, and sarscov2 is much more like cold/flu than polio. Specifically, saracov2 has reservoirs in animals. Unless you had an effective vaccine that also works for cats, dogs, deer etc and the ability to actually deploy it (think wild deer all over the US), it’s here to stay.
    - Geezus-42 5y ago
      Create an animal vaccine, give hunters dart guns and free rein to shoot as many as they can. Then see what happens.
      - beagle3 5y ago
        You are underestimating the geographical spread and numbers of deer in the us. And likely also overestimating the number and ability of hunters.
- simonh 5y ago
  We can't stop it dead, but we can dramatically reduce the number of critical illnesses and deaths, and have done so in many countries. I'm a Brit and our lockdown and vaccination policy has been extremely effective. We've largely lived normal lives since the summer, with low case rates and very low mortality thanks to strong vaccine uptake and popular support for protective measures. If we need to lock down again, we will because we have experienced the benefits that this strategy has produced. I'm having my booster shot on Saturday. I fully expect to contract the virus at some point, and that's fine. I'm well protected by vaccination and the rate of propagation in the country is moderate enough that the hospitals aren't being overwhelmed by huge surges in infections and deaths any more. Slowing down and limiting the impact of the virus doesn't stop it, correct, but it does massively reduce the damage it causes. That is very much worth doing, as the experience here in the UK clearly shows.
  - adam_arthur 5y ago
    The UK has roughly equivalent covid deaths per capita as the USA, where vast parts of the country never locked down and still by and large don't wear masks or get vaccinated. Did the stricter lockdowns make a difference in the end?
    - simonh 5y ago
      Were demographically and geographically completely different. Our population is much denser, more like a populous US state than a sprawling continental giant. People used to compare virus control in the US to places like Singapore and New Zealand, as though their ability to control the virus has any lessons that are realistically applicable. We were hammered early on because we are very highly connected with the rest of the world. London is very international, and Heathrow is one of the busiest airports in the world, out of proportion to our population size. We were always going to take a heavy hit. Nevertheless as soon as vaccines became available we have had broad adoption, and ever since we've been reaping the rewards. Delta arrived here early, but by then our vaccine take up was enough that it didn't really make as much of an impact on us as it has elsewhere. It's just amazing to me that in 2021 here on HN the fact that vaccines protect against viruses is an actual question, or in any way political.
- taylodl 5y ago
  > Covid is here forever, and that's life. Good thing we didn't take that attitude with smallpox. Or polio. We have eradicated disease. It's not like we've never done this before.
  - adam_arthur 5y ago
    Those diseases actually had high mortality rates, unlike covid. There's something called proportionate response. Personally I think policymakers should consider the actual pros and cons and the weight of them, rather than virtue signal as if everybody can be saved from every ailment, and acting as if second order effects don't exist. We also could have locked down every winter to save people from dying due to flu. Why do you think we didn't do that before, when it could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives? Why don't we wear masks 24/7 to protect from flu?
    - taylodl 5y ago
      Because flu doesn’t fill our ICU’s to overflowing and burn out our medical staff. The number of deaths aren’t the only metric that should concern us.
      - Gibbon1 5y ago
        Some nurse friends of mine say a bad flu season will strain the capacity of ICU's. Something people that want to 'live with covid' don't seem to consider.
spurgu 5y ago
No it actually does not really stop spread to any significant degree (which is evident just by looking around what's going on everywhere). It just makes the symptoms milder. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00648-4/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3... https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(21)00258-1/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7...
- pfg 5y ago
  I don't understand how you came to that conclusion based on the articles you linked. The first study finds that "The SAR [secondary attack rate] in household contacts exposed to the delta variant was 25% (95% CI 18–33) for fully vaccinated individuals compared with 38% (24–53) in unvaccinated individuals" and "Fully vaccinated individuals with delta variant infection had a faster (posterior probability >0·84) mean rate of viral load decline (0·95 log10 copies per mL per day) than did unvaccinated individuals with pre-alpha (0·69), alpha (0·82), or delta (0·79) variant infections." (The study did not determine a meaningful impact on peak viral load and on the SAR in households when the index case was vaccinated.) The second link is a letter that reiterates the fact that vaccinated index cases are just as likely to infect other household members and concludes with "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", which makes sense, but does not mean spread When you say "which is evident just by looking around what's going on everywhere", it's important to point out that we're now dealing with a variant that is significantly more transmissible than previous ones, so we can't compare the numbers like-for-like.
  - spurgu 5y ago
    > vaccinated index cases are just as likely to infect other household members > It appears to be grossly negligent to ignore the vaccinated population as a possible and relevant source of transmission You're going to have to dumb it down for me as to how this doesn't refer to spread. > we're now dealing with a variant that is significantly more transmissible And yes, agreed. Many are still focused on data from the previous variants though, whereas the thinking will need to change.

by simonh 5y ago

adam_arthur 5y ago

Yes, of course. But the virus is endemic and vaccines will not stop it from being caught by everybody at some point. You can't lockdown the virus away. You can't stop the spread by canceling flights either. Just seems like awful policymaking driven by virtue signaling. Covid is here forever, and that's life.

junon 5y ago
Seems we've already forgotten the whole point of lockdowns the first time: to prevent overloading the hospital systems. In places where hospitals were under capacity, deaths were significantly lower. Germany is a good example of this. Overwhelmed healthcare systems, by comparison, saw lots more deaths. Once it escaped Wuhan the goal was no longer to contain, but to control and soften the impact.
TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
This is nonsense. Vaccination stopped smallpox and polio. Failure at Zero Covid is the result of poor, anti-realistic policies and attitudes - like yours, for example. It's not because it's impossible, either economically or scientifically.
- beagle3 5y ago
  This is nonsense. Vaccination did not stop measles or whooping cough, and has not even reduced their spread (only their symptoms) despite decades of availability. Both of their vaccines are leaky - just like the Covid vaccine.
  - loeg 5y ago
    What? Measles is almost entirely constrained to the unvaccinated and we vaccinate babies for pertussis at 2 months.
    - beagle3 5y ago
      Sorry, meant to write flu. Not sure why I wrote measles. Measles vaccine is, indeed, likely the best vaccine ever in terms of efficiency and safety. It’s also sterilizing rather than leaky.
FourHand451 5y ago
> But the virus is endemic and vaccines will not stop it from being caught by everybody at some point. Plenty of people live their whole lives without catching smallpox or polio. We have/can develop effective vaccines for COVID. Why should it be different?
- beagle3 5y ago
  No people have gone through their life without catching the cold and very few without catching the flu at least once, despite having flu vaccines for a few decades now. Not all viruses are the same, and sarscov2 is much more like cold/flu than polio. Specifically, saracov2 has reservoirs in animals. Unless you had an effective vaccine that also works for cats, dogs, deer etc and the ability to actually deploy it (think wild deer all over the US), it’s here to stay.
  - Geezus-42 5y ago
    Create an animal vaccine, give hunters dart guns and free rein to shoot as many as they can. Then see what happens.
    - beagle3 5y ago
      You are underestimating the geographical spread and numbers of deer in the us. And likely also overestimating the number and ability of hunters.
simonh 5y ago
We can't stop it dead, but we can dramatically reduce the number of critical illnesses and deaths, and have done so in many countries. I'm a Brit and our lockdown and vaccination policy has been extremely effective. We've largely lived normal lives since the summer, with low case rates and very low mortality thanks to strong vaccine uptake and popular support for protective measures. If we need to lock down again, we will because we have experienced the benefits that this strategy has produced. I'm having my booster shot on Saturday. I fully expect to contract the virus at some point, and that's fine. I'm well protected by vaccination and the rate of propagation in the country is moderate enough that the hospitals aren't being overwhelmed by huge surges in infections and deaths any more. Slowing down and limiting the impact of the virus doesn't stop it, correct, but it does massively reduce the damage it causes. That is very much worth doing, as the experience here in the UK clearly shows.
- adam_arthur 5y ago
  The UK has roughly equivalent covid deaths per capita as the USA, where vast parts of the country never locked down and still by and large don't wear masks or get vaccinated. Did the stricter lockdowns make a difference in the end?
  - simonh 5y ago
    Were demographically and geographically completely different. Our population is much denser, more like a populous US state than a sprawling continental giant. People used to compare virus control in the US to places like Singapore and New Zealand, as though their ability to control the virus has any lessons that are realistically applicable. We were hammered early on because we are very highly connected with the rest of the world. London is very international, and Heathrow is one of the busiest airports in the world, out of proportion to our population size. We were always going to take a heavy hit. Nevertheless as soon as vaccines became available we have had broad adoption, and ever since we've been reaping the rewards. Delta arrived here early, but by then our vaccine take up was enough that it didn't really make as much of an impact on us as it has elsewhere. It's just amazing to me that in 2021 here on HN the fact that vaccines protect against viruses is an actual question, or in any way political.
taylodl 5y ago
> Covid is here forever, and that's life. Good thing we didn't take that attitude with smallpox. Or polio. We have eradicated disease. It's not like we've never done this before.
- adam_arthur 5y ago
  Those diseases actually had high mortality rates, unlike covid. There's something called proportionate response. Personally I think policymakers should consider the actual pros and cons and the weight of them, rather than virtue signal as if everybody can be saved from every ailment, and acting as if second order effects don't exist. We also could have locked down every winter to save people from dying due to flu. Why do you think we didn't do that before, when it could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives? Why don't we wear masks 24/7 to protect from flu?
  - taylodl 5y ago
    Because flu doesn’t fill our ICU’s to overflowing and burn out our medical staff. The number of deaths aren’t the only metric that should concern us.
    - Gibbon1 5y ago
      Some nurse friends of mine say a bad flu season will strain the capacity of ICU's. Something people that want to 'live with covid' don't seem to consider.

spurgu 5y ago

No it actually does not really stop spread to any significant degree (which is evident just by looking around what's going on everywhere). It just makes the symptoms milder. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00648-4/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3... https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(21)00258-1/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7...

pfg 5y ago
I don't understand how you came to that conclusion based on the articles you linked. The first study finds that "The SAR [secondary attack rate] in household contacts exposed to the delta variant was 25% (95% CI 18–33) for fully vaccinated individuals compared with 38% (24–53) in unvaccinated individuals" and "Fully vaccinated individuals with delta variant infection had a faster (posterior probability >0·84) mean rate of viral load decline (0·95 log10 copies per mL per day) than did unvaccinated individuals with pre-alpha (0·69), alpha (0·82), or delta (0·79) variant infections." (The study did not determine a meaningful impact on peak viral load and on the SAR in households when the index case was vaccinated.) The second link is a letter that reiterates the fact that vaccinated index cases are just as likely to infect other household members and concludes with "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", which makes sense, but does not mean spread When you say "which is evident just by looking around what's going on everywhere", it's important to point out that we're now dealing with a variant that is significantly more transmissible than previous ones, so we can't compare the numbers like-for-like.
- spurgu 5y ago
  > vaccinated index cases are just as likely to infect other household members > It appears to be grossly negligent to ignore the vaccinated population as a possible and relevant source of transmission You're going to have to dumb it down for me as to how this doesn't refer to spread. > we're now dealing with a variant that is significantly more transmissible And yes, agreed. Many are still focused on data from the previous variants though, whereas the thinking will need to change.