5 ms·

> Does this mean COVID is over? When I took my first jab, the local clinic handed out a flier explaining in no uncertain terms that: a) the current batch of v

by fivea 5y ago

> Does this mean COVID is over? When I took my first jab, the local clinic handed out a flier explaining in no uncertain terms that: a) the current batch of vaccines work by giving our immune system a workout to be able to experience a COVID infection as either totally unnoticed or at most a mild case, b) the current batch of vaccines does not nor did ever guaranteed you won't contract and spread COVID, c) even with all shots we still need to practice basic higiene and health precautions like wearing a mask, wash hands, and social distance. We're talking about pre-Delta times. This has been widely known from the start. How come antivaxxers are the only ones repeating cynical comments on how the initial batch of vaccines, which we all are lucky to have but are still at the level of being better than nothing, would be a silver bullet?

Ajedi32 5y ago
> the current batch of vaccines does not nor did ever guaranteed you won't contract and spread COVID Guarantee, no. But the thought was that it would greatly reduce the risk of spreading the disease, such that once a sufficient number of people were vaccinated herd immunity would kill off the virus and end the pandemic. We're now two years in with a 73% vaccination rate in the US (not counting those with natural immunity), with even higher rates elsewhere; still no end in sight. If vaccines aren't going to end the pandemic, then something else needs to. Will a pill that reduces the lethality of the disease by 89% be enough that we can finally put this to rest and go back to normal? If not that, then what?
- patrickthebold 5y ago
  I thought the vaccines reduced the lethality quite a bit. Do we know how vaccinated/no pill compare to unvaccinated/pill?
- acdha 5y ago
  > But the thought was that it would greatly reduce the risk of spreading the disease, such that once a sufficient number of people were vaccinated herd immunity would kill off the virus and end the pandemic. We're now two years in with a 73% vaccination rate in the US (not counting those with natural immunity), This was very clearly and openly discussed when the vaccines first came out: vaccines would help reduce spread and with a high enough rate that would end the pandemic but that we’d need relatively high vaccination rates to stop something which can spread this easily. This was correct and the data suggests that it could have worked but we never seriously tried it. As of today, 61% of Americans have been vaccinated. That is far, far below the 90+% threshold used in those first messages — and that was before Delta and the Omicron delivered both higher spread and reduced effectiveness to make the problem harder. The other thing to remember is that the pandemic ending doesn’t necessarily mean complete eradication. If, as appears to be the case, vaccination and medications significantly reduce the risk of serious illness and/or long COVID, that will probably be enough to get it down to the level of, say, influenza.
refurb 5y ago
That’s not what was messaged to the general public from our leaders. The narrative went from “the vaccinated cant get infected” to “the vaccinated won’t really transmit it”, so “its clearly the unvaccinated who are the problem” to “well it turns out vaccinated people can get and transmit Covid just as well as unvaccinated”. And if vaccines wouldnt “end” Covid why so much discussion on R values and “herd immunity”. The messaging around that went silent pretty quickly when it was clear that wasn’t happening with Covid. And the only reason the narrative changed is because it was plainly obvious to the general public things weren’t going as planned. But I get it, you cant predict how a new infectious disease will pan out, but holy shit has the PR messaging ever been terrible. But then I wonder if that was intentional? Would the public ever have gone along with all this if the government was honest and said “we’ll continue to have restrictions for the next 5 years”?
- supertrope 5y ago
  I think the CDC was being pragmatic. They recognized that Americans were fatigued after a year. Asking people to still mask and social distance even after vaccinating is a lot to ask for even if it would technically get the virus under control sooner by catching those breakthrough cases too. The prospect of normalcy would increase vaccine acceptance, and then we would hopefully reach herd immunity by vaccine as demonstrated by cases falling off a cliff. Unfortunately unvaccinated people took off their masks and then Delta happened.
  - refurb 5y ago
    So the CDC lied and now that lie is coming back to bite them when people doubt what they say going forward? And please, Delta was starting to circulate before the vaccine was widely available outside the US and Europe. But that’s exactly what I’m talking about. The unvaccinated make a good scapegoat for the failure to properly message.
    - supertrope 5y ago
      If they promote very cautious behavior (keep sheltering in place, wear masks) people will throw the catch phrase of "Trust the science!" back at them and demand why the vaccine has not solved the pandemic. If they loosen up on recommendations and something bad happens and they have to take a step back people say they are being capricious.

by fivea 5y ago

Ajedi32 5y ago

> the current batch of vaccines does not nor did ever guaranteed you won't contract and spread COVID Guarantee, no. But the thought was that it would greatly reduce the risk of spreading the disease, such that once a sufficient number of people were vaccinated herd immunity would kill off the virus and end the pandemic. We're now two years in with a 73% vaccination rate in the US (not counting those with natural immunity), with even higher rates elsewhere; still no end in sight. If vaccines aren't going to end the pandemic, then something else needs to. Will a pill that reduces the lethality of the disease by 89% be enough that we can finally put this to rest and go back to normal? If not that, then what?

patrickthebold 5y ago
I thought the vaccines reduced the lethality quite a bit. Do we know how vaccinated/no pill compare to unvaccinated/pill?
acdha 5y ago
> But the thought was that it would greatly reduce the risk of spreading the disease, such that once a sufficient number of people were vaccinated herd immunity would kill off the virus and end the pandemic. We're now two years in with a 73% vaccination rate in the US (not counting those with natural immunity), This was very clearly and openly discussed when the vaccines first came out: vaccines would help reduce spread and with a high enough rate that would end the pandemic but that we’d need relatively high vaccination rates to stop something which can spread this easily. This was correct and the data suggests that it could have worked but we never seriously tried it. As of today, 61% of Americans have been vaccinated. That is far, far below the 90+% threshold used in those first messages — and that was before Delta and the Omicron delivered both higher spread and reduced effectiveness to make the problem harder. The other thing to remember is that the pandemic ending doesn’t necessarily mean complete eradication. If, as appears to be the case, vaccination and medications significantly reduce the risk of serious illness and/or long COVID, that will probably be enough to get it down to the level of, say, influenza.

refurb 5y ago

That’s not what was messaged to the general public from our leaders. The narrative went from “the vaccinated cant get infected” to “the vaccinated won’t really transmit it”, so “its clearly the unvaccinated who are the problem” to “well it turns out vaccinated people can get and transmit Covid just as well as unvaccinated”. And if vaccines wouldnt “end” Covid why so much discussion on R values and “herd immunity”. The messaging around that went silent pretty quickly when it was clear that wasn’t happening with Covid. And the only reason the narrative changed is because it was plainly obvious to the general public things weren’t going as planned. But I get it, you cant predict how a new infectious disease will pan out, but holy shit has the PR messaging ever been terrible. But then I wonder if that was intentional? Would the public ever have gone along with all this if the government was honest and said “we’ll continue to have restrictions for the next 5 years”?

supertrope 5y ago
I think the CDC was being pragmatic. They recognized that Americans were fatigued after a year. Asking people to still mask and social distance even after vaccinating is a lot to ask for even if it would technically get the virus under control sooner by catching those breakthrough cases too. The prospect of normalcy would increase vaccine acceptance, and then we would hopefully reach herd immunity by vaccine as demonstrated by cases falling off a cliff. Unfortunately unvaccinated people took off their masks and then Delta happened.
- refurb 5y ago
  So the CDC lied and now that lie is coming back to bite them when people doubt what they say going forward? And please, Delta was starting to circulate before the vaccine was widely available outside the US and Europe. But that’s exactly what I’m talking about. The unvaccinated make a good scapegoat for the failure to properly message.
  - supertrope 5y ago
    If they promote very cautious behavior (keep sheltering in place, wear masks) people will throw the catch phrase of "Trust the science!" back at them and demand why the vaccine has not solved the pandemic. If they loosen up on recommendations and something bad happens and they have to take a step back people say they are being capricious.