Read on Twitter
Some thoughts on vaccines for SARSCOV2.
So, trials for the current vaccine candidates would appear to have been designed to detect a reduction in symptoms only, as summarised here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamhaseltine/2020/09/23/covid-19-vaccine-protocols-reveal-that-trials-are-designed-to-succeed/?sh=31d5f7785247
So, trials for the current vaccine candidates would appear to have been designed to detect a reduction in symptoms only, as summarised here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamhaseltine/2020/09/23/covid-19-vaccine-protocols-reveal-that-trials-are-designed-to-succeed/?sh=31d5f7785247
None of the companies are claiming any reduction in the propensity to become infected, for example Pfizer's CEO is careful what he says here: https://www.businesstoday.in/latest/trends/not-certain-pfizer-ceo-on-if-their-covid-vaccine-stops-transmission/story/424015.html
This would make these vaccines like those for flu' - they reduce severity.
That's a worthy aim in and of itself as it is likely to reduce the mortality burden in vulnerable groups, but it would seem it's not something being recognised by most people.
That's a worthy aim in and of itself as it is likely to reduce the mortality burden in vulnerable groups, but it would seem it's not something being recognised by most people.
There are plenty of commentators saying there are "moral obligations" to be vaccinated to protect older people. We have calls for "bio passports", "vaccination certificates" and so on.
Such demands rely on the vaccines reducing transmission.
But we don't even know if they reduce infection, let alone transmission.
But we don't even know if they reduce infection, let alone transmission.
BUT, people might (reasonably) say: it's a respiratory virus, it's spread via droplet secretions which are generally correlated to symptoms.
In other words - it's like every other respiratory virus in that regard.
So reduce symptoms and transmission will be reduced.
In other words - it's like every other respiratory virus in that regard.
So reduce symptoms and transmission will be reduced.
That sounds logical.
But it's the opposite of what proponents of lockdown have been arguing.
The justification for lockdowns rests on asymptomatic transmission being a major contributory factor to the pandemic.
But it's the opposite of what proponents of lockdown have been arguing.
The justification for lockdowns rests on asymptomatic transmission being a major contributory factor to the pandemic.
So let's pretend they (and we) are right.
What will a vaccine which reduces symptoms do?
Won't it shift people from being symptomatic to asymptomatic?
How will they then know to self-isolate?
Not by testing, they don't even know if they need a test as they feel OK.
What will a vaccine which reduces symptoms do?
Won't it shift people from being symptomatic to asymptomatic?
How will they then know to self-isolate?
Not by testing, they don't even know if they need a test as they feel OK.
So which is it:
(1) a reduction in symptoms will assist managing the virus as most spread is associated with symptoms.
In which case: what was / is the point of lockdowns / restrictions over and above self-isolation of those with symptoms?
Or:
(1) a reduction in symptoms will assist managing the virus as most spread is associated with symptoms.
In which case: what was / is the point of lockdowns / restrictions over and above self-isolation of those with symptoms?
Or:
(2) a reduction in symptoms will not assist managing the virus, as asymptomatic spead is a major factor.
If so, as described above, whilst welcoming the extra protection afforded to the vulnerable, it's illogical to view vaccines as a pre-requisite to get life back to normal.
If so, as described above, whilst welcoming the extra protection afforded to the vulnerable, it's illogical to view vaccines as a pre-requisite to get life back to normal.
The conclusion to this is that once vulnerable groups have (voluntarily) been vaccinated, all restrictions to society must end.
This is essential to cease the enormous ongoing collateral public health and economic harms being done to society.
This is essential to cease the enormous ongoing collateral public health and economic harms being done to society.
By the way, if your answer to this is "Moonshot", have you thought about exactly when that would end, and at what cost?
Do people really think it would be worth it, having vaccinated the vulnerable?
Do people really think it would be worth it, having vaccinated the vulnerable?
