3 ms·

Australia and New Zealand tried lockdowns against Delta. They didn't work until vaccination rates got high enough. Then omicron came and not even 90% vax rates

Australia and New Zealand tried lockdowns against Delta. They didn't work until vaccination rates got high enough. Then omicron came and not even 90% vax rates were enough to stop the spread. So the vaccines without lockdowns is more a pragmatic move because lockdowns stopped working. Besides, the vaccines work, there just isn't the same need to have lockdowns anymore. AU and NZ lockdowns were less ugly than this Shanghai description though. I went outside to cycle and run literally every day of the NSW 2021 lockdown.

lvl102 5y ago
I think we need to stop calling MRNA solutions vaccines because they are gene therapies. You need regular administration for them to be effective on a public health level which is not logistically feasible as we found out. They know this but they’re playing along as a matter of publicity and politics. We got incredibly lucky with Omicron.
- ImaCake 5y ago
  The mRNA vaccines are absolutely vaccines and not gene therapies. The mRNA is turned into protein and it is that protein that your immune system is trained to attack. If we consider mRNA, or any vaccine, to be a gene therapy it would because the immune system has to modify its own DNA to generate antibodies. But we might then call the common cold a gene therapy or becoming allergic to something an accidental gend therapy. Obviously this is silly.
- maxerickson 5y ago
  The mRNA vaccines literally expose your immune system to a foreign antigen, the longstanding definition of a vaccine. They use a nice trick to get your own body to manufacture the antigen, but it's not gene therapy, they don't go anywhere your genes, they give ribosomes some extra instructions. The boosters have been extremely effective at preventing severe infections, which is plenty useful for public health even if it isn't as good as preventing transmission entirely.
  - lvl102 5y ago
    Not quite. There’s a good reason why efficacy falls off sharply after just 2-3 weeks. Again, it’s a “vaccine” not a vaccine. They just call it that because they want the public to buy-in. I say this as someone who’s been in biotech for a decade plus. Edit: I am not antivax. I believe you should get all the shots even a second booster despite all its shortcomings.
    - maxerickson 5y ago
      You are misinformed.
thevagrant 5y ago
The Aus and NZ approach worked well to keep pressure off the health system until enough were vaccinated. Data seems to show those that had 3rd shot pfizer have very low risk of hospitalization compared with unvaxxed. The 3rd shot (booster) really makes a difference, something I myself was quite skeptical about early on. I had initially thought if the 2nd doesn't work then the third is probably placebo but glad to be proven wrong.

lvl102 5y ago

I think we need to stop calling MRNA solutions vaccines because they are gene therapies. You need regular administration for them to be effective on a public health level which is not logistically feasible as we found out. They know this but they’re playing along as a matter of publicity and politics. We got incredibly lucky with Omicron.

ImaCake 5y ago
The mRNA vaccines are absolutely vaccines and not gene therapies. The mRNA is turned into protein and it is that protein that your immune system is trained to attack. If we consider mRNA, or any vaccine, to be a gene therapy it would because the immune system has to modify its own DNA to generate antibodies. But we might then call the common cold a gene therapy or becoming allergic to something an accidental gend therapy. Obviously this is silly.
maxerickson 5y ago
The mRNA vaccines literally expose your immune system to a foreign antigen, the longstanding definition of a vaccine. They use a nice trick to get your own body to manufacture the antigen, but it's not gene therapy, they don't go anywhere your genes, they give ribosomes some extra instructions. The boosters have been extremely effective at preventing severe infections, which is plenty useful for public health even if it isn't as good as preventing transmission entirely.
- lvl102 5y ago
  Not quite. There’s a good reason why efficacy falls off sharply after just 2-3 weeks. Again, it’s a “vaccine” not a vaccine. They just call it that because they want the public to buy-in. I say this as someone who’s been in biotech for a decade plus. Edit: I am not antivax. I believe you should get all the shots even a second booster despite all its shortcomings.
  - maxerickson 5y ago
    You are misinformed.

thevagrant 5y ago

The Aus and NZ approach worked well to keep pressure off the health system until enough were vaccinated. Data seems to show those that had 3rd shot pfizer have very low risk of hospitalization compared with unvaxxed. The 3rd shot (booster) really makes a difference, something I myself was quite skeptical about early on. I had initially thought if the 2nd doesn't work then the third is probably placebo but glad to be proven wrong.