I really feel like there needs to be some clarity about what an end condition would look like for social distancing/masks.
If, as a society, we need to forever give up weddings and church and restaurants and school, then we better get on with reshaping that.
If the criteria is “we have to go on like this until an area shows fewer than X/100k a day”, well, that’s a goal we can work toward.
If the criteria is “we have to go on like this until research establishes that vaccines do prevent contagion, not just symptoms”, we need to start that research–and communicate that it’s being done.
How on earth can people be convinced to vaccinate if we are basically saying that for the foreseeable future, maybe for years, maybe forever, no weddings, no going outside your bubble, and vaccination makes no difference? If that’s the hard truth, let’s face it. But if we can establish some end conditions, that would be better.
That research can only really start now and it could be different for different vaccines. There’s no point communicating that they’re working on it. Anyone who knows enough to care about it can be reasonably confident that they are.
Everyone has to know enough to care about it, if the official message is going to be that it is socially irresponsible for people that have been vaccinated to modify their behavior at all.
I’ve been assuming (rightly? wrongly?) that the end condition is when everyone has had the opportunity to be vaccinated. Right now we’re in the in-between time where some have had the vaccination and some have not, and we haven’t yet been able to vaccinate everybody—which is the whole reason we’re talking about priority.
I’m being forced back in the classroom before I can get the vaccine. Add to this that they are greatly reducing safety precautions for convenience and I will be at a high risk of getting infected for a couple months
Mortality is a big concern, but I’m also concerned about the long term effects of COVID on survivors, specifically lung function. I’m afraid this may become a significant problem long after the 65+ population has died out.
"Like many, she’s treated thousands of patients since March.
Of them, she tells CBS 11 News those who have had COVID-19 symptoms show a severe chest X-ray every time. And those who were asymptomatic show a severe chest X-ray 70 to 80% of the time."
Regarding the topic of educators, as I understand it the rationale is primarily to open schools. There aren’t enough healthy teachers to open the schools, but offering vaccination could change that. There is an obvious educational benefit to in-person learning, as well as an economic benefit (once the kids are back in school the parents can go back to work). I never thought teachers as a vector was a convincing argument, compared to essential workers like grocery clerks.
You ask how much longer the elderly can isolate, but we also have to consider how much longer families can continue if they are required by law and basic duty to leave at least one adult home with the child (and also to feed and house the child).
Right. But what is impact on infection rates among those not infected? If the vaccine stops infection as well as symptoms, then populations that have not been vaccinated should also see a drop in infections as the people around them become less and less likely to transmit the disease. However, if all those vaccinated people are actually just as likely as anyone to have COVID, but are asymptomatic, then I think infections among non-vaccinated people would actually go up.
If the vaccinated can still pass the infection, we need everyone including the vaccinated to socially distance, not forever, but until everyone has been vaccinated. Just like how we all (should be) getting vaccinated for measles.
Sure, but it is very unlikely that the vaccine provides no protection against transmission whatsoever. We can’t assume it does until we have evidence, and should act accordingly, but it would be very unusual for this to be the case.
If the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, then there is no such thing as herd immunity.
But talk of vaccinated people still spreading the disease is mostly just panic-mongering. No, we don’t know for sure that the vaccines prevent spread. Why don’t we know that? Because it hasn’t been studied. Why hasn’t it been studied? Because we’re already pretty sure we know the answer. In almost all other cases we know of, a vaccine that stops the disease also stops transmission of the disease. It is extremely unlikely that COVID works any differently.
That’s not the reason it hasn’t been studied. In fact, that very question IS being studied right now, because even if we grant that the vaccine provides some protection, there is a wide range between “much less likely to transmit” and “impossible to transmit”, and our behavior should depend on these findings.
The reason it hasn’t been studied SO FAR is that not enough people have been vaccinated to meaningfully test this until very recently.
I know this. I also know he should be wearing a mask, but he won’t. He also thinks trump was the best president ever. This has been a rather uncomfortable year.