3 ms·

Tested on rhesus macaques. Worked well for 44% of them. It's a positive step, but still a fair way off for humans.

mohamedkoubaa 3mo ago
It doesn't need to be 100% effective in humans, it just needs to slow transmission enough such that the rate of incidence declines in the direction of eradication.
- wavemode 3mo ago
  It will have the opposite effect, if people who get the vaccine start behaving as though they are 100% protected (which, many people will).
  - cromka 3mo ago
    > It will It might. You don't know that.
    - wavemode 3mo ago
      The epistemic modality of my statement was implied. I obviously don't know the future.
      - JumpCrisscross 3mo ago
        > I obviously don't know the future Nor the past. Seatbelt requirements did result in riskier driving. It also, on the net, saved lives. Same for every other vaccine, or e.g. birth control in respect of teenage and unwanted pregnancies. Also, PreP exists and works.
        wavemode 3mo ago
        > Seatbelt requirements did result in riskier driving. It also, on the net, saved lives. Okay? This seems unrelated. A better analogy would be if they had invented airbags and then people stopped wearing seatbelts. (like taking a 44% effective vaccine and then stop using PreP) > Same for every other vaccine, or e.g. birth control in respect of teenage and unwanted pregnancies. Also unrelated. Birth control is highly effective, and in fact is statistically more effective than condoms (since condoms can slip and/or break). My issue is the poor effectiveness of this vaccine.
        JumpCrisscross 3mo ago
        > This seems unrelated It's the exact effect you're describing. Seatbelts aren't 100% efffective. When they were mandated, a common criticism was that this would increase risky driving. It did, a bit. But not enough to negate the significant safety effects of wearing a seatbelt. > My issue is the poor effectiveness of this vaccine One, it's still preclinical. We don't know its effectiveness in humans. But two, your argument is still historically invalid. Vaccines have been effective at the community level without being totally effective individually. And again, your concerns would apply more to PreP than the vaccine. Your hypothesis wasn't a bad instinct. But you could have followed up on it or, when confronted with evidence against it, chosen not to double down.
        wavemode 2mo ago
        I can't tell if you're arguing in bad faith or if you just don't actually understand anything I've been saying. > Your hypothesis wasn't a bad instinct. But you could have followed up on it or, when confronted with evidence against it, chosen not to double down. ...huh? What solitary point of evidence has even been presented? First it was pointed out to me that I'm not a psychic, which is true but is not evidence of anything. Then it was pointed out to me that seatbelts save lives and contraception prevents pregnancy, which are also true statementsnbut are also not evidence of anything, given that both are highly effective at what they do. If you want to present evidence of something, why don't you start by presenting evidence of this: > Vaccines have been effective at the community level without being totally effective individually. Let's start with, what historical vaccine had 44% effectiveness? Then, let's move on to, what historical vaccine had 44% effectiveness and was released to the public despite there already existing a 99% effective prophylactic drug for the same disease? And what was the outcome there? If you still don't get the point I'm making, then nothing will change this and we should just end the exchange.
  - Jalad 3mo ago
    This is called moral hazard, and people love to worry about it. Usually though (the relevant example here is PrEP, or birth control) it's fine and enables people to live their lives with fewer risks to their, and others, wellbeing
    - wavemode 3mo ago
      No, I'm not talking about moral hazard at all. I'm just talking about the poor effectiveness. If it were highly effective, like PreP and birth control are, there would be no issue in my mind.
paseante 3mo ago
[flagged]

It doesn't need to be 100% effective in humans, it just needs to slow transmission enough such that the rate of incidence declines in the direction of eradication.

wavemode 3mo ago
It will have the opposite effect, if people who get the vaccine start behaving as though they are 100% protected (which, many people will).
- cromka 3mo ago
  > It will It might. You don't know that.
  - wavemode 3mo ago
    The epistemic modality of my statement was implied. I obviously don't know the future.
    - JumpCrisscross 3mo ago
      > I obviously don't know the future Nor the past. Seatbelt requirements did result in riskier driving. It also, on the net, saved lives. Same for every other vaccine, or e.g. birth control in respect of teenage and unwanted pregnancies. Also, PreP exists and works.
      - wavemode 3mo ago
        > Seatbelt requirements did result in riskier driving. It also, on the net, saved lives. Okay? This seems unrelated. A better analogy would be if they had invented airbags and then people stopped wearing seatbelts. (like taking a 44% effective vaccine and then stop using PreP) > Same for every other vaccine, or e.g. birth control in respect of teenage and unwanted pregnancies. Also unrelated. Birth control is highly effective, and in fact is statistically more effective than condoms (since condoms can slip and/or break). My issue is the poor effectiveness of this vaccine.
        JumpCrisscross 3mo ago
        > This seems unrelated It's the exact effect you're describing. Seatbelts aren't 100% efffective. When they were mandated, a common criticism was that this would increase risky driving. It did, a bit. But not enough to negate the significant safety effects of wearing a seatbelt. > My issue is the poor effectiveness of this vaccine One, it's still preclinical. We don't know its effectiveness in humans. But two, your argument is still historically invalid. Vaccines have been effective at the community level without being totally effective individually. And again, your concerns would apply more to PreP than the vaccine. Your hypothesis wasn't a bad instinct. But you could have followed up on it or, when confronted with evidence against it, chosen not to double down.
        wavemode 2mo ago
        I can't tell if you're arguing in bad faith or if you just don't actually understand anything I've been saying. > Your hypothesis wasn't a bad instinct. But you could have followed up on it or, when confronted with evidence against it, chosen not to double down. ...huh? What solitary point of evidence has even been presented? First it was pointed out to me that I'm not a psychic, which is true but is not evidence of anything. Then it was pointed out to me that seatbelts save lives and contraception prevents pregnancy, which are also true statementsnbut are also not evidence of anything, given that both are highly effective at what they do. If you want to present evidence of something, why don't you start by presenting evidence of this: > Vaccines have been effective at the community level without being totally effective individually. Let's start with, what historical vaccine had 44% effectiveness? Then, let's move on to, what historical vaccine had 44% effectiveness and was released to the public despite there already existing a 99% effective prophylactic drug for the same disease? And what was the outcome there? If you still don't get the point I'm making, then nothing will change this and we should just end the exchange.
- Jalad 3mo ago
  This is called moral hazard, and people love to worry about it. Usually though (the relevant example here is PrEP, or birth control) it's fine and enables people to live their lives with fewer risks to their, and others, wellbeing
  - wavemode 3mo ago
    No, I'm not talking about moral hazard at all. I'm just talking about the poor effectiveness. If it were highly effective, like PreP and birth control are, there would be no issue in my mind.

paseante 3mo ago

[flagged]