3 ms·

Initial studies looking at infections and vaccinations in large populations didn't find correlation. A couple of aater studies that looked at infections in sing

by Arnt 5y ago

Initial studies looking at infections and vaccinations in large populations didn't find correlation. A couple of aater studies that looked at infections in single households did. That is, they looked at the question "when a single member of a household is infected, how large is the chance that others in that household are infected?" and the answer to that is that the vaccines do indeed dampen transmission by quite a bit. Very roughly half. I guess the difference is that the people in a city, say, may change their behaviour as the vaccination rates change, but the people in a household don't start/stop eating dinner together.

hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
That's interesting, I understood the opposite is happening[0]: > High COVID-19 vaccination rates were expected to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in populations by reducing the number of possible sources for transmission and thereby to reduce the burden of COVID-19 disease. Recent data, however, indicate that the epidemiological relevance of COVID-19 vaccinated individuals is increasing. In the UK it was described that secondary attack rates among household contacts exposed to fully vaccinated index cases was similar to household contacts exposed to unvaccinated index cases (25% for vaccinated vs 23% for unvaccinated). 12 of 31 infections in fully vaccinated household contacts (39%) arose from fully vaccinated epidemiologically linked index cases. [0] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(21)00258-1/fulltext?s=09 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7...
- Arnt 5y ago
  High vaccination rates were supposed to do that, but compared to what? If you do an interim thing to reduce the transmission rate (and it works) and then you do something permanent (and it works too, compared to the initial state) and stop doing the first, the transition might not be an improvement compared to the interim.

by Arnt 5y ago

hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago

That's interesting, I understood the opposite is happening[0]: > High COVID-19 vaccination rates were expected to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in populations by reducing the number of possible sources for transmission and thereby to reduce the burden of COVID-19 disease. Recent data, however, indicate that the epidemiological relevance of COVID-19 vaccinated individuals is increasing. In the UK it was described that secondary attack rates among household contacts exposed to fully vaccinated index cases was similar to household contacts exposed to unvaccinated index cases (25% for vaccinated vs 23% for unvaccinated). 12 of 31 infections in fully vaccinated household contacts (39%) arose from fully vaccinated epidemiologically linked index cases. [0] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(21)00258-1/fulltext?s=09 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7...

Arnt 5y ago
High vaccination rates were supposed to do that, but compared to what? If you do an interim thing to reduce the transmission rate (and it works) and then you do something permanent (and it works too, compared to the initial state) and stop doing the first, the transition might not be an improvement compared to the interim.