5 ms·

Serious question: should we let this more infectious but less dangerous run its course to achieve natural immunity? What are the arguments for and against this

Serious question: should we let this more infectious but less dangerous run its course to achieve natural immunity? What are the arguments for and against this strategy? I know that if it is 5 times less likely to put people in hospitals but 10 times more transmissible then there will be 2 times more people in hospitals, but are there more arguments?

philovivero 5y ago
Yes. We should do that. We won't. Pro: everyone is fine, the hospitals aren't overwhelmed, the anti-vaxxers will be fine along with everyone else. Con: can't speak with disgust and disdain anymore to those who disagree with your medical opinions, or have concerns with how quickly you're forcing your experimental medications on the entire planet. Not going to happen. I've already seen the usual suspects talking about how we need bigger, better, stronger vaccines for Omicron. We're pretty excited by this RNA vaccine tech, and we're going to use it, no matter what happens. There's too much money and too much political power on the pro-vax anti-immune-system side of things.
- pavel_lishin 5y ago
  > everyone is fine Except the people who aren't. > the hospitals aren't overwhelmed Except the ones that are. > forcing your experimental medications on the entire planet No more experimental than any other vaccine; due to how quickly COVID spread, we were able to do the same level of testing on the vaccine as for any other medication. It's as safe as anything else you take.
  - tonguez 5y ago
    “No more experimental than any other vaccine” you are creating more vaccine hesitancy by saying this
  - donkarma 5y ago
    vaccine trials usually last 2 years alone from a quick glance
    - pavel_lishin 5y ago
      Because most vaccines are for diseases that aren't as prevalent in the population as COVID has been; we've had significantly more people to run the trials on!
  - choward 5y ago
    To your first two points, you could say that before covid. Do you have a time machine or something? You can't study long term effects just by having a bigger study.
beefman 5y ago
Who's "we" and what makes you think they have any control over the matter?
- adam_arthur 5y ago
  Well, many governments reinstating restrictions, for one. These work to slow the spread, which given the innocuous nature of Omicron, seem more damaging than helpful. Not that any government ever considered second order effects of these policies to begin with...
  - vidarh 5y ago
    Many of these restrictions were put in place because the effects of Omicron were uncertain when they were decided. If these early results bear out, I'm sure we'll start seeing the easing of some restrictions again very quickly.
    - adam_arthur 5y ago
      The restrictions largely don't have any effect anyway, if you compare different US state policies with health outcomes. Especially something like a travel/flight ban, as if that can stop an exponentially spreading virus.
      - jlokier 5y ago
        A travel/flight ban changes the exponent, which changes the shape and peak of the healthcare curve, buys time for gathering data, and in Omicron's case, more time to roll out an mRNA booster dose which significantly improves protection against severe symptoms compared with the 2-dose schedule. It definitely has an effect, even if the virus is not "stopped".
        amanaplanacanal 5y ago
        If it is already widespread domestically, a travel ban isn't going to do anything.
tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
> I know that if it is 5 times less likely to put people in hospitals but 10 times more transmissible then there will be 2 times more people in hospitals, but are there more arguments? If it is more transmissible, people will be put into hospitals faster, and its not linear. Something that has an R of 1.1 will very slowly burn through part of the population then eventually die out as immunity reduces R just below 1. Something that has R=11 will infect almost everyone, and very quickly, even if we halve transmission with drastic measures limiting contact etc.

philovivero 5y ago

Yes. We should do that. We won't. Pro: everyone is fine, the hospitals aren't overwhelmed, the anti-vaxxers will be fine along with everyone else. Con: can't speak with disgust and disdain anymore to those who disagree with your medical opinions, or have concerns with how quickly you're forcing your experimental medications on the entire planet. Not going to happen. I've already seen the usual suspects talking about how we need bigger, better, stronger vaccines for Omicron. We're pretty excited by this RNA vaccine tech, and we're going to use it, no matter what happens. There's too much money and too much political power on the pro-vax anti-immune-system side of things.

pavel_lishin 5y ago
> everyone is fine Except the people who aren't. > the hospitals aren't overwhelmed Except the ones that are. > forcing your experimental medications on the entire planet No more experimental than any other vaccine; due to how quickly COVID spread, we were able to do the same level of testing on the vaccine as for any other medication. It's as safe as anything else you take.
- tonguez 5y ago
  “No more experimental than any other vaccine” you are creating more vaccine hesitancy by saying this
- donkarma 5y ago
  vaccine trials usually last 2 years alone from a quick glance
  - pavel_lishin 5y ago
    Because most vaccines are for diseases that aren't as prevalent in the population as COVID has been; we've had significantly more people to run the trials on!
- choward 5y ago
  To your first two points, you could say that before covid. Do you have a time machine or something? You can't study long term effects just by having a bigger study.

beefman 5y ago

Who's "we" and what makes you think they have any control over the matter?

adam_arthur 5y ago
Well, many governments reinstating restrictions, for one. These work to slow the spread, which given the innocuous nature of Omicron, seem more damaging than helpful. Not that any government ever considered second order effects of these policies to begin with...
- vidarh 5y ago
  Many of these restrictions were put in place because the effects of Omicron were uncertain when they were decided. If these early results bear out, I'm sure we'll start seeing the easing of some restrictions again very quickly.
  - adam_arthur 5y ago
    The restrictions largely don't have any effect anyway, if you compare different US state policies with health outcomes. Especially something like a travel/flight ban, as if that can stop an exponentially spreading virus.
    - jlokier 5y ago
      A travel/flight ban changes the exponent, which changes the shape and peak of the healthcare curve, buys time for gathering data, and in Omicron's case, more time to roll out an mRNA booster dose which significantly improves protection against severe symptoms compared with the 2-dose schedule. It definitely has an effect, even if the virus is not "stopped".
      - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
        If it is already widespread domestically, a travel ban isn't going to do anything.

tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago

> I know that if it is 5 times less likely to put people in hospitals but 10 times more transmissible then there will be 2 times more people in hospitals, but are there more arguments? If it is more transmissible, people will be put into hospitals faster, and its not linear. Something that has an R of 1.1 will very slowly burn through part of the population then eventually die out as immunity reduces R just below 1. Something that has R=11 will infect almost everyone, and very quickly, even if we halve transmission with drastic measures limiting contact etc.