7 ms·

There's a lot of 'indicates' and 'suggests' and 'potential' there rather than clinical outcomes. Given how the unvaccinated are mostly locked out of things at

There's a lot of 'indicates' and 'suggests' and 'potential' there rather than clinical outcomes. Given how the unvaccinated are mostly locked out of things at present, current case trajectories and hospitalisations 'suggest' the overall vaccine outcome is not one that solves the problem in any meaningful way.

hef19898 5y ago
Last time I checked, invaccinated patients were vastly over repredented in hospitalization and ICU occupation. No indication, but hard facts. If vaccines prevent serious cases and hospitalization for a large percentage of people, and they do, we would be all good if vaccination rates reach sufficient levels. Until they do, the very limited ICU capacity will be taken up overpropertionally unvaccinated. And we will continue to have problems.
- headsoup 5y ago
  What's a sufficient level then? It was once 70%, then 80, then 90. Now we have places pushing 95 and that's still not enough? Perhaps we should be paying a bit closer attention to what the vaccines aren't doing.
  - hef19898 5y ago
    No idea what a sufficient level is, Delta, Omicron and all that considered. Also, I am not into pandemic modelling. Since I don't necessarily care where the level right now is, peiple can always look up the latest papers and studies in that topic.
  - dzhiurgis 5y ago
    NZ has 95% rate and just got first omicron cases few days in strict quarantine. Will see how it will go.
    - hef19898 5y ago
      What a sufficient level is also depends on the goal: Eradicting Covid would require higher rates then just turning into a less serious endemic virus. Personally I think eradication is impossible by now.
    - refurb 5y ago
      Singapore hit 90%+ vaccination (eligible) a month ago and just got over a raging wave of Delta infections.
  - fsh 5y ago
    100% would be ideal. It seems to impossible to achieve herd immunity against COVID (whether by vaccination or by immunity due to infection), so everyone will get it eventually. The more are vaccinated, the lower the load on the healthcare system will be.
    - headsoup 5y ago
      100% is only an ideal if we don't really believe anything less will work... Don't we want some sort of control group to remain for these vaccines that don't formally conclude their trials for a couple of years yet? Or is everyone just 100% convinced that nothing could possibly go wrong at this point? That would be proper scientific diligence.
      - fsh 5y ago
        This is about a medical intervention, not about a scientific study. Vaccine adverse events are usually evaluated by comparing with background rates from previous studies. Control groups are used in randomized control trials and are probably mostly worthless without randomization.
        headsoup 5y ago
        Except the trials are still underway, so yes, it is about scientific study. And proper diligence and reporting is critical for such a significant experiment, wouldn't you think?
      - marvin 5y ago
        > Or is everyone just 100% convinced that nothing could possibly go wrong at this point What would be an example of something going wrong? Are you thinking that a sub-optimal outcome might occur ("the pandemic lasted 4 months longer than it had to") or that 80% of the people vaccinated drop dead in 2025? The first case would be an unfortunate case of the best attempt of a decision made on uncertain data turning out to be incorrect in retrospect. In the latter case, civilization is still protected as many people chose not to get vaccinated.
  - usrusr 5y ago
    Delta and Omicron are just so much "faster" than what we encountered before. Thankfully the general working principle of the brakes (vaccines) seems to be mostly unaffected by them, but we have to press them harder. What the vaccines are not doing: make it 2019 again.
  - marvin 5y ago
    This will eventually blow over. People getting infected with a variant that the vaccine does not prevent infection against, will still develop their immune reaction for that variant. At some point in the future there will once again be a balance between the collective immune response and the transmissability of the virus. The vaccines available right now are still obviously the best measure we have to make getting to that point less painful, as they reduce hospitalizations dramatically. It's pretty obvious that e.g. if a 50% vaccination rate leaves the ICU at 10x capacity during an unmitigated outbreak, a 90% vaccination rate would be preferable even if it doesn't prevent the need for quarantine measures. This means that contact-reducing measures don't have to be as severe while the outbreak is happening.
stavros 5y ago
> the overall vaccine outcome is not one that solves the problem in any meaningful way. Only if you think that "people not dying" isn't meaningful, anyway.
- headsoup 5y ago
  But people are still dying. It's not that the vaccines haven't prevented death, it's that we seem to be past the peak of what they can solve and yet keep putting all our eggs in that basket. Recent to Omicron, there were more cases and hospitalisations than the same time last year when vaccination was low and Delta was the main variant still. The message is constantly that it's the unvaccinated causing it, but why is that so when they form such a small proportion of the population, there's been plenty of prior exposure and seasonality seems to show a greater effect than the vaccines? Not to mention the risk to under 40's has been extremely low throughout. How do the unvaccinated keep 'filling up' hospitals if vaccines reduce spread and there's 80-90%+ double-dose coverage?
  - stavros 5y ago
    > it's that we seem to be past the peak of what they can solve There's no peak to preventing a fixed percentage of deaths. It's fixed. > and yet keep putting all our eggs in that basket. As far as I'm aware, we haven't stopped all other research, so that would be false. > How do the unvaccinated keep 'filling up' hospitals if vaccines reduce spread and there's 80-90%+ double-dose coverage? Because 2% of 10% of an entire country is still a big number.
    - headsoup 5y ago
      But that 2% of 10% are not standing in a line all holding hands. It's clear the vaccinated are readily spreading the disease around and yet the reward is greater freedom for them to spread it? Why do we not still care for the unvaccinated regardless of their reasons or situations for being so? The vaccine is clearly not protecting that group (the original reason for mandates), and 'preventing deaths' vs the unknowns around long term vaccine outcomes (we're all just assuming nothing serious at present) and the increases in stresses and illnesses driven from lockdown, restrictions and mandates are creating a toll that we seem happy to assume is always less than the direct covid toll and therefore acceptable.

hef19898 5y ago

Last time I checked, invaccinated patients were vastly over repredented in hospitalization and ICU occupation. No indication, but hard facts. If vaccines prevent serious cases and hospitalization for a large percentage of people, and they do, we would be all good if vaccination rates reach sufficient levels. Until they do, the very limited ICU capacity will be taken up overpropertionally unvaccinated. And we will continue to have problems.

headsoup 5y ago
What's a sufficient level then? It was once 70%, then 80, then 90. Now we have places pushing 95 and that's still not enough? Perhaps we should be paying a bit closer attention to what the vaccines aren't doing.
- hef19898 5y ago
  No idea what a sufficient level is, Delta, Omicron and all that considered. Also, I am not into pandemic modelling. Since I don't necessarily care where the level right now is, peiple can always look up the latest papers and studies in that topic.
- dzhiurgis 5y ago
  NZ has 95% rate and just got first omicron cases few days in strict quarantine. Will see how it will go.
  - hef19898 5y ago
    What a sufficient level is also depends on the goal: Eradicting Covid would require higher rates then just turning into a less serious endemic virus. Personally I think eradication is impossible by now.
  - refurb 5y ago
    Singapore hit 90%+ vaccination (eligible) a month ago and just got over a raging wave of Delta infections.
- fsh 5y ago
  100% would be ideal. It seems to impossible to achieve herd immunity against COVID (whether by vaccination or by immunity due to infection), so everyone will get it eventually. The more are vaccinated, the lower the load on the healthcare system will be.
  - headsoup 5y ago
    100% is only an ideal if we don't really believe anything less will work... Don't we want some sort of control group to remain for these vaccines that don't formally conclude their trials for a couple of years yet? Or is everyone just 100% convinced that nothing could possibly go wrong at this point? That would be proper scientific diligence.
    - fsh 5y ago
      This is about a medical intervention, not about a scientific study. Vaccine adverse events are usually evaluated by comparing with background rates from previous studies. Control groups are used in randomized control trials and are probably mostly worthless without randomization.
      - headsoup 5y ago
        Except the trials are still underway, so yes, it is about scientific study. And proper diligence and reporting is critical for such a significant experiment, wouldn't you think?
    - marvin 5y ago
      > Or is everyone just 100% convinced that nothing could possibly go wrong at this point What would be an example of something going wrong? Are you thinking that a sub-optimal outcome might occur ("the pandemic lasted 4 months longer than it had to") or that 80% of the people vaccinated drop dead in 2025? The first case would be an unfortunate case of the best attempt of a decision made on uncertain data turning out to be incorrect in retrospect. In the latter case, civilization is still protected as many people chose not to get vaccinated.
- usrusr 5y ago
  Delta and Omicron are just so much "faster" than what we encountered before. Thankfully the general working principle of the brakes (vaccines) seems to be mostly unaffected by them, but we have to press them harder. What the vaccines are not doing: make it 2019 again.
- marvin 5y ago
  This will eventually blow over. People getting infected with a variant that the vaccine does not prevent infection against, will still develop their immune reaction for that variant. At some point in the future there will once again be a balance between the collective immune response and the transmissability of the virus. The vaccines available right now are still obviously the best measure we have to make getting to that point less painful, as they reduce hospitalizations dramatically. It's pretty obvious that e.g. if a 50% vaccination rate leaves the ICU at 10x capacity during an unmitigated outbreak, a 90% vaccination rate would be preferable even if it doesn't prevent the need for quarantine measures. This means that contact-reducing measures don't have to be as severe while the outbreak is happening.

stavros 5y ago

> the overall vaccine outcome is not one that solves the problem in any meaningful way. Only if you think that "people not dying" isn't meaningful, anyway.

headsoup 5y ago
But people are still dying. It's not that the vaccines haven't prevented death, it's that we seem to be past the peak of what they can solve and yet keep putting all our eggs in that basket. Recent to Omicron, there were more cases and hospitalisations than the same time last year when vaccination was low and Delta was the main variant still. The message is constantly that it's the unvaccinated causing it, but why is that so when they form such a small proportion of the population, there's been plenty of prior exposure and seasonality seems to show a greater effect than the vaccines? Not to mention the risk to under 40's has been extremely low throughout. How do the unvaccinated keep 'filling up' hospitals if vaccines reduce spread and there's 80-90%+ double-dose coverage?
- stavros 5y ago
  > it's that we seem to be past the peak of what they can solve There's no peak to preventing a fixed percentage of deaths. It's fixed. > and yet keep putting all our eggs in that basket. As far as I'm aware, we haven't stopped all other research, so that would be false. > How do the unvaccinated keep 'filling up' hospitals if vaccines reduce spread and there's 80-90%+ double-dose coverage? Because 2% of 10% of an entire country is still a big number.
  - headsoup 5y ago
    But that 2% of 10% are not standing in a line all holding hands. It's clear the vaccinated are readily spreading the disease around and yet the reward is greater freedom for them to spread it? Why do we not still care for the unvaccinated regardless of their reasons or situations for being so? The vaccine is clearly not protecting that group (the original reason for mandates), and 'preventing deaths' vs the unknowns around long term vaccine outcomes (we're all just assuming nothing serious at present) and the increases in stresses and illnesses driven from lockdown, restrictions and mandates are creating a toll that we seem happy to assume is always less than the direct covid toll and therefore acceptable.