3 ms·

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 bi

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.
    - headsoup 5y ago
      We don't know do we. That's the fact. And how would we know if the control group is just removed (as Pfizer did in their phase 3 trials anyway...)? I guess hopefully we don't find out, because the only way it'll ever be clearly distinguished is if it goes very badly across the board. Anything less can quite simply be explained away. Isn't it nice for Pfizer/Moderna to be able to run the long-term study with immunity in a manner that is very hard to understand clinical outcomes (except the huge side-effect profile readily dismissed as 'acceptable' because some deaths are more important than others).
- refurb 5y ago
  You will never hit 100% vaccinated. A big part of public health is “compliance”. Compliance rates with cancer are low 90% and these are people that die without treatment. Hitting mid-80% is actually pretty impressive.
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.

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.
  - headsoup 5y ago
    We don't know do we. That's the fact. And how would we know if the control group is just removed (as Pfizer did in their phase 3 trials anyway...)? I guess hopefully we don't find out, because the only way it'll ever be clearly distinguished is if it goes very badly across the board. Anything less can quite simply be explained away. Isn't it nice for Pfizer/Moderna to be able to run the long-term study with immunity in a manner that is very hard to understand clinical outcomes (except the huge side-effect profile readily dismissed as 'acceptable' because some deaths are more important than others).
refurb 5y ago
You will never hit 100% vaccinated. A big part of public health is “compliance”. Compliance rates with cancer are low 90% and these are people that die without treatment. Hitting mid-80% is actually pretty impressive.

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.