This is because vaccines are the only tool we have that can stop a virus in its tracks without causing undue damage to human productivity and human happiness
That’s not true. Interventions such as improving ventilation or increasing the humidity of the air don’t cost human productivity and might even raise human happiness.
Changing laws to make it easier for workers to be ill to stay at home might reduce productivity a bit but raise human happiness.
Upon further reflection, I notice that I am confused. My statement was “stop the virus dead in its tracks”, i.e.: single-handedly bring R_0 sufficiently low that infections, instead of growing exponentially, decay quickly within a given population (thereby making outside exposure the only source of continued infections).
As far as I’m aware, this statement is true of vaccines, but is not true of any of: better ventilation, sick leave (since people are contagious usually before they show symptoms), or Vitamin D.
So I stand by my assertion: Vaccines are the only tool in our toolbox that can stop the virus dead in its tracks (as opposed to merely slowing it down)
Vaccines never stopped flu alone in its tracks. It’s theoretically possible to get a better vaccine against either of those but the current tech does not seem to be enough to stop the virus dead in its tracks if it’s not used in combination with other tools.
We need different words to describe what the polio and measles shots do vs. what the flu and COVID shots do. One of these tools effectively stops [disease/death] and the other may reduce [symptoms/severity/transmission].
That is the only way to let the statement that “vaccines stop the virus dead in its tracks” remain true.
Create vaccine that effectively brings R0 under 1 (reducing spread being the key factor here)
Immunize population
Isolate immunized population
If 1 and 2, then we don’t need 3, right?
If 2 and 3 but not 1, then we have something that resembles our current situation, with a lot of people arguing contentiously (rather than productively) over whether 3 is necessary (or helpful) and whether 2 is even necessary (or helpful) given that 1 is absent.
The other question that could provoke argument/contention is “whether the COVID vaccines could have brought R0 under 1 if they were implemented more efficiently.” This brings us back to the question of how to evaluate COVID data, because I can see the two movies on the same screen being something like “we could have ended this a year early if you had just taken the vaccines” and “we knew the vaccines weren’t going to solve the problem a year before you did.”
That’s not true. Interventions such as improving ventilation or increasing the humidity of the air don’t cost human productivity and might even raise human happiness.
Changing laws to make it easier for workers to be ill to stay at home might reduce productivity a bit but raise human happiness.
Vitamin D can also be positive on both.
Upon further reflection, I notice that I am confused. My statement was “stop the virus dead in its tracks”, i.e.: single-handedly bring R_0 sufficiently low that infections, instead of growing exponentially, decay quickly within a given population (thereby making outside exposure the only source of continued infections).
As far as I’m aware, this statement is true of vaccines, but is not true of any of: better ventilation, sick leave (since people are contagious usually before they show symptoms), or Vitamin D.
So I stand by my assertion: Vaccines are the only tool in our toolbox that can stop the virus dead in its tracks (as opposed to merely slowing it down)
Vaccines never stopped flu alone in its tracks. It’s theoretically possible to get a better vaccine against either of those but the current tech does not seem to be enough to stop the virus dead in its tracks if it’s not used in combination with other tools.
We need different words to describe what the polio and measles shots do vs. what the flu and COVID shots do. One of these tools effectively stops [disease/death] and the other may reduce [symptoms/severity/transmission].
That is the only way to let the statement that “vaccines stop the virus dead in its tracks” remain true.
Mike was talking about bringing R0 under 1 and not just about reducing disease/death.
Got it. So the proposed solution on the table is:
Create vaccine that effectively brings R0 under 1 (reducing spread being the key factor here)
Immunize population
Isolate immunized population
If 1 and 2, then we don’t need 3, right?
If 2 and 3 but not 1, then we have something that resembles our current situation, with a lot of people arguing contentiously (rather than productively) over whether 3 is necessary (or helpful) and whether 2 is even necessary (or helpful) given that 1 is absent.
The other question that could provoke argument/contention is “whether the COVID vaccines could have brought R0 under 1 if they were implemented more efficiently.” This brings us back to the question of how to evaluate COVID data, because I can see the two movies on the same screen being something like “we could have ended this a year early if you had just taken the vaccines” and “we knew the vaccines weren’t going to solve the problem a year before you did.”
Thanks for the notes