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.”
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.”