3 ms·
The difference isn't as minor as I think you're suggesting. Compared to 95% efficacy, 90% efficacy means twice as many vaccinated people get sick and 75% effica
by SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
The difference isn't as minor as I think you're suggesting. Compared to 95% efficacy, 90% efficacy means twice as many vaccinated people get sick and 75% efficacy means five times as many get sick. I don't see how eradication programs would work with such a differential, and (relatedly) I don't know of any experts who think it's feasible to eradicate Covid with current technology.
- dragontamer 5y ago> I don't see how eradication programs would work with such a differential Its all about R0. If the efficacy (and compliance) is above the 1 / R0 rate, then eradication is possible. As its "efficacy times compliance", the number we wish to maximize is the smaller number. Efficacy may have dropped to 60% (double shot vs Delta), but a 3rd booster brings the efficacy back up to 90%. Compliance however, is stuck around 60% in the USA in general, and a large number of people are refusing to get the booster. As such, compliance is the number we need to work on right now. -------- Going from 90% to 99% vaccine efficacy barely does anything, because our vaccine compliance numbers are so damn low.