3 ms·

That doesn't change that the campaign could have been successful if more people were vaccinated, even with that defective vaccine. If 5 people get iatrogenical

• hutzlibu 4y ago
  Can you cite a researcher that says the problem has anything to do with people refusing the vaccine? They say very clearly it was the vaccine that was the problem. Those oral vaccines are very quick to deploy, but still, your solution would require that EVERY PERSON ON EARTH takes the vaccine at the same time and then goes into isolation. And the problem does not stop there. Or how would it work your way? You realise that the virus from the vaccine goes into the sewer and god knows where else and stays contagious? The only solution the researchers are saying is for everyone to get the expensive shot, which is not using a live virus.
  • iudqnolq 4y ago
    Why do you think going into isolation would be needed? The whole point of the comment you're replying to is that contagious people aren't a problem if there's no one vulnerable for them to spread it to. (Also, that doesn't require everyone vaccinated, just a high percentage).
    • hutzlibu 4y ago
      "(Also, that doesn't require everyone vaccinated, just a high percentage)" Yes, and that high percentage of vaccinated people was achieved. But ... Polio is still back. So how would be your plan to get everyone not vulnerable with the cheap (and dangerous) vaccine? (the vaccine does not give 100% protection btw.)
      • partomniscient 4y ago
        One other thing to consider is even if its eradicated - it originally arose from pre-Polio building blocks of some sort, how do you prevent it from re-occurring 'from scratch'?
      • iudqnolq 4y ago
        You keep trying to turn things into binary factors: it either is a high percent or it isn't, 100% protection or bust. That's not how this works. The percentage of people who need to be vaccinated is based on many factors, including the degree of protection the vaccine provides. There's no one number, it varies based on the totality of the circumstances. One valid interpretation of the setbacks we've encountered in eradicating polio is that number needs to be a bit higher. As you can see in this chart the level of vaccination, while high in many countries, could be higher. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/polio-vaccine-coverage-of-one-year-olds https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/polio-vaccine-coverage-of...
        • hutzlibu 4y ago
          "You keep trying to turn things into binary factors" I am citing the researchers, about the significant problem that prevented eradication of Polio. None of them mentioned antivaxxers as the main reason(or any reason at all), only people here in this thread did, with the original comment implying it was only because of antivaxxers. Which is just not true here. "One valid interpretation of the setbacks we've encountered in eradicating polio is that number needs to be a bit higher." So I am not a virologist, but if you think your simple solution and intepretation is a valid one, then it should not be hard, to find an actual virologists who states the same. And if you cannot, maybe accknowledge, that the problem is a bit more complex. If vaccine refusers would have significantly prevented the rollout of the vaccine to reach significant numbers, it would have been mentioned as a reason. But it wasn't. The campaign alltogether was still likely a huge success, but just not in its goal to eradicate polio.
          • deleted 4y ago
            [deleted]
          • epgui 4y ago
            You've already been provided with all the breadcrumbs required to understand the key concepts. Your failure to engage with this information and follow the trail does not make you a "good skeptic", it makes you obstinate.