A good thing for the society of your country maybe. There are healthcare workers and elderly people all over the world who would also need a shot and especially healthcare workers everywhere should be able to get a shot before some random who isnt prio 1 or 2 in a rich country.
Could a person have two different vaccines? Moderna and Pfizer for example?
Except thereās no evidence for this whatsoever?
So your position is that more resources need to be poured into preventing people from getting shots?
You mean one shot of one and one shot of the other? No.
No my position is that we shouldnāt applaud and reward people trying to jump the line.
1 Like
Two shots of each. Would that even be beneficial?
At risk workers in poor countries arenāt going to get shots any sooner no matter what choice is made in the described hypotheticals.
3 Likes
Yeah its the result of the rich countries taking everything they can for themselves. They founded COVAX but they dont give it the needed resources. You are only looking for excuses to not feel bad. We should all feel bad at what is happening right now. Corona only shows what happens in other areas as well. For me it only means that there is no hope saving this planet longterm for our children.
Yeah, the downside is that a person in a vulnerable population would have gotten the shot, but they die of COVID while theyāre waiting instead. This is basically the Harry Lyme defense.
Obviously thereās no evidence that the vaccine is more or less effective in different exposure scenarios, but the point is completely valid. In the study, both the vaccine and the control groups were subjected to an assortment of COVID exposure scenarios that were typical of late 2020. Take the subset of exposure scenarios that result in infection for an average unvaccinated person. 91% of those specific exposures will not result in infection for a vaccinated person. Thatās what the study shows. It does not give you much solid information about what would happen in different exposure scenarios (although Iām sure scientists can make some educated guesses).
But to take the simplest example, you canāt use the study to distinguish between a vaccine that gives 91% of people perfect immunity and one that gives 100% of people 91% immunity. That makes a huge difference if you then scale up the number of exposures through reopening. If 91% of people have perfect immunity, then given enough exposures, 9% of the population gets the disease. OTOH, if everyone only has 91% immunity, then given enough exposures, everyone gets the disease. There could be similar variations vis-a-vis viral load or anything else.
2 Likes
Apparently wearing masks and social distancing is net more effective than half ass vaccination participation.
Anyhow I believe it was just meant as a humorous highlighting that masks work.
It also highlights how much more contagious and net deadly Covid is vs the flu. Flu has been basically stopped cold. Covid is still getting around pretty good and 2000 a day still dying.
I believe there are studies of one and one.
Two and two probably has no or very slight advantage if we assume the antigen sequences are slightly different. As long as supply is limited (everywhere not just locally) then itās pretty much a crime against a humanity.
Feeling guilty about getting the vaccine earlier than someone in a poor country makes sense on a human level. Donāt forget about your eduction, plentiful clean water, and the poor people in Texas without reliable power.
But practically unless the whole damn US and EU populations refuse getting vaxxed in order for other countries to back their vulnerables it doesnāt matter.
Every vaccinated is a good vaccinated at this point. Some are better than others. Donāt pay or lie to move up the line and you are ok ethically imo.
This is incorrect. Studies with control groups still have limitations. They are validated in an environment where masks are still used widely. It will be interesting to see how this holds up as we drop more precautions. I think it will go well.
For sure. It was a hypothetical question some friends had. If someone got J&J and supplies allowed would their even be a value in getting one of the other ones too?
Iām getting AstraZeneca though
Not sure if that makes a difference
I mean ok, add it to the long list of valid criticisms about the COVID response, but I stand by what I wrote.
https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/1368245264788643841
Imagine how bad it would have been if he had let the cases double to checks notes 30.
1 Like
That is within the recommended period and IIRC, 6wks is what the initial protocol was when it (i.e., AZ vaccine) first came out. A while back everyone was up in arms about not the possibility of not getting the second dose soon enough. Even though there was some evidence to show that if you actually delayed the second dose even more, the immunity would ultimately be greater. Now there is more evidence to support that strategy. I think in UK theyāve moved to default 12 wks. 6 is still pretty good though.
Havenāt looked into AZ in a while, so I may be remembering some of above incorrectly.