Biffer wrote: Tue Dec 22, 2020 8:09 pm
Raggs wrote: Tue Dec 22, 2020 5:23 pm
Sandstorm wrote: Tue Dec 22, 2020 4:28 pm
I think you might have a lawsuit on your hands if a patient dies after being told they "don''t need to come in for the 2nd dose....."
Surely you could equally argue that if you were next in line, and could have had a 70% effective dose?
Basically, I'm looking at the numbers. 0.7 x 24 million (assuming 6 doses not 5) = 16.8m, so that's roughly 25% of the population vaccinated effectively. Or we could push that upto 50%. 50% is going to have a serious effect on how fast the virus can spread. Especially when combined with a few other millions from the other vaccines.
Firstly, are you really thinking you’ve come up with something nobody else has thought of? Do you really think that no one else is smart enough to have thought of this so it hasn’t been considered?
Secondly, it wouldn’t work. To prevent epidemics of a disease with R=3, you need 67% of the population to be immune. If you’re only providing 70% immunity, you’d need to get that into nearly 100% of the population to prevent epidemic spread. So the better public health response is to give the higher level of protection to the vulnerable. It’s not hard to figure it out if you think a little bit and don’t assume you’re some kind of secret fucking genius.
Way to go with the aggressive tones
No, I don't think I'm the only one to think of it. Hence me wondering how much thought there was given to it, and the thinking behind it.
50% of the population vaccinated effectively is going to put a huge dent in the virus's ability to spread, which will help protect everyone regardless. No, it's not the 70% needed to stop the virus completely, but it's a lot closer than 33% or so. Vulnerable individuals may be at greater risk, however it's not only vulnerable individuals dying/suffering long term from this. My interest is whether protecting 70% of the vulnerable vs 95%, but also protecting a far greater proportion of the population (which in turn will slow the spread significantly) would be the better approach. And again, I wondered what methods were used to decide this. I don't believe I'm a secret genius, but it is an interesting topic for me, hence me fucking raising it.