Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vaccine rolls out in late November for limited use. About a 54-57 percent efficacy rate with limited side effects. That’s when this is over, for all intents and purposes.

Can you please explain your last sentence?
Seems like the efficacy rate of that vaccine isn't high enough to provide herd immunity.

And that's assuming everyone will take it (or even most people).

It's also assuming that there will be enough of the vaccine to go around and not just be rolled out "for limited use"

Just curious to hear your thoughts, thanks!

Meaning that’s when this is over from a psychological perspective. Sure, others who were not in the early groups (military, first responders, etc.) may choose to get the vaccine. That would be good. But that’s it — a vaccine of limited efficacy combined with safety measures for the most vulnerable is the best we’ll be able to do. Take it or leave it.

Agree. Unless you think we can keep moving the goalposts from "flatten the curve" to "until there's a vaccine" to "until everybody 100% will never get it". Which of course is a standard we do not apply to any other disease or activity. I think the vaccine developments are cause for great optimism. Thanks for the updates.

Well, yes then it would cease to be a global pandemic. Once we can move off of that then yes we will move forward as a society. I don’t think that can happen until there is a vaccine though.

I fervently hope we can move forward and stop with all this “schools/colleges shut down while restaurants and gyms are open” nonsense when a vaccine is available. But, we’ve already read on some of the school forums that the next shifting of the goalposts will be “a vaccine is available to CHILDREN (right now it’s just being tested on adults), it’s 90+% effective, and getting it is mandatory for school attendance.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vaccine rolls out in late November for limited use. About a 54-57 percent efficacy rate with limited side effects. That’s when this is over, for all intents and purposes.

Can you please explain your last sentence?
Seems like the efficacy rate of that vaccine isn't high enough to provide herd immunity.

And that's assuming everyone will take it (or even most people).

It's also assuming that there will be enough of the vaccine to go around and not just be rolled out "for limited use"

Just curious to hear your thoughts, thanks!

Meaning that’s when this is over from a psychological perspective. Sure, others who were not in the early groups (military, first responders, etc.) may choose to get the vaccine. That would be good. But that’s it — a vaccine of limited efficacy combined with safety measures for the most vulnerable is the best we’ll be able to do. Take it or leave it.

Agree. Unless you think we can keep moving the goalposts from "flatten the curve" to "until there's a vaccine" to "until everybody 100% will never get it". Which of course is a standard we do not apply to any other disease or activity. I think the vaccine developments are cause for great optimism. Thanks for the updates.

Well, yes then it would cease to be a global pandemic. Once we can move off of that then yes we will move forward as a society. I don’t think that can happen until there is a vaccine though.

I fervently hope we can move forward and stop with all this “schools/colleges shut down while restaurants and gyms are open” nonsense when a vaccine is available. But, we’ve already read on some of the school forums that the next shifting of the goalposts will be “a vaccine is available to CHILDREN (right now it’s just being tested on adults), it’s 90+% effective, and getting it is mandatory for school attendance.”

Except schools are open all over the country?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vaccine rolls out in late November for limited use. About a 54-57 percent efficacy rate with limited side effects. That’s when this is over, for all intents and purposes.

Can you please explain your last sentence?
Seems like the efficacy rate of that vaccine isn't high enough to provide herd immunity.

And that's assuming everyone will take it (or even most people).

It's also assuming that there will be enough of the vaccine to go around and not just be rolled out "for limited use"

Just curious to hear your thoughts, thanks!

Meaning that’s when this is over from a psychological perspective. Sure, others who were not in the early groups (military, first responders, etc.) may choose to get the vaccine. That would be good. But that’s it — a vaccine of limited efficacy combined with safety measures for the most vulnerable is the best we’ll be able to do. Take it or leave it.

Agree. Unless you think we can keep moving the goalposts from "flatten the curve" to "until there's a vaccine" to "until everybody 100% will never get it". Which of course is a standard we do not apply to any other disease or activity. I think the vaccine developments are cause for great optimism. Thanks for the updates.

Well, yes then it would cease to be a global pandemic. Once we can move off of that then yes we will move forward as a society. I don’t think that can happen until there is a vaccine though.

I fervently hope we can move forward and stop with all this “schools/colleges shut down while restaurants and gyms are open” nonsense when a vaccine is available. But, we’ve already read on some of the school forums that the next shifting of the goalposts will be “a vaccine is available to CHILDREN (right now it’s just being tested on adults), it’s 90+% effective, and getting it is mandatory for school attendance.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vaccine rolls out in late November for limited use. About a 54-57 percent efficacy rate with limited side effects. That’s when this is over, for all intents and purposes.

Can you please explain your last sentence?
Seems like the efficacy rate of that vaccine isn't high enough to provide herd immunity.

And that's assuming everyone will take it (or even most people).

It's also assuming that there will be enough of the vaccine to go around and not just be rolled out "for limited use"

Just curious to hear your thoughts, thanks!

Meaning that’s when this is over from a psychological perspective. Sure, others who were not in the early groups (military, first responders, etc.) may choose to get the vaccine. That would be good. But that’s it — a vaccine of limited efficacy combined with safety measures for the most vulnerable is the best we’ll be able to do. Take it or leave it.

Agree. Unless you think we can keep moving the goalposts from "flatten the curve" to "until there's a vaccine" to "until everybody 100% will never get it". Which of course is a standard we do not apply to any other disease or activity. I think the vaccine developments are cause for great optimism. Thanks for the updates.

Well, yes then it would cease to be a global pandemic. Once we can move off of that then yes we will move forward as a society. I don’t think that can happen until there is a vaccine though.

I fervently hope we can move forward and stop with all this “schools/colleges shut down while restaurants and gyms are open” nonsense when a vaccine is available. But, we’ve already read on some of the school forums that the next shifting of the goalposts will be “a vaccine is available to CHILDREN (right now it’s just being tested on adults), it’s 90+% effective, and getting it is mandatory for school attendance.”

Let’s be real, no one cares about the kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vaccine rolls out in late November for limited use. About a 54-57 percent efficacy rate with limited side effects. That’s when this is over, for all intents and purposes.

Can you please explain your last sentence?
Seems like the efficacy rate of that vaccine isn't high enough to provide herd immunity.

And that's assuming everyone will take it (or even most people).

It's also assuming that there will be enough of the vaccine to go around and not just be rolled out "for limited use"

Just curious to hear your thoughts, thanks!

Meaning that’s when this is over from a psychological perspective. Sure, others who were not in the early groups (military, first responders, etc.) may choose to get the vaccine. That would be good. But that’s it — a vaccine of limited efficacy combined with safety measures for the most vulnerable is the best we’ll be able to do. Take it or leave it.

Agree. Unless you think we can keep moving the goalposts from "flatten the curve" to "until there's a vaccine" to "until everybody 100% will never get it". Which of course is a standard we do not apply to any other disease or activity. I think the vaccine developments are cause for great optimism. Thanks for the updates.

Well, yes then it would cease to be a global pandemic. Once we can move off of that then yes we will move forward as a society. I don’t think that can happen until there is a vaccine though.

I fervently hope we can move forward and stop with all this “schools/colleges shut down while restaurants and gyms are open” nonsense when a vaccine is available. But, we’ve already read on some of the school forums that the next shifting of the goalposts will be “a vaccine is available to CHILDREN (right now it’s just being tested on adults), it’s 90+% effective, and getting it is mandatory for school attendance.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vaccine rolls out in late November for limited use. About a 54-57 percent efficacy rate with limited side effects. That’s when this is over, for all intents and purposes.

Can you please explain your last sentence?
Seems like the efficacy rate of that vaccine isn't high enough to provide herd immunity.

And that's assuming everyone will take it (or even most people).

It's also assuming that there will be enough of the vaccine to go around and not just be rolled out "for limited use"

Just curious to hear your thoughts, thanks!

Meaning that’s when this is over from a psychological perspective. Sure, others who were not in the early groups (military, first responders, etc.) may choose to get the vaccine. That would be good. But that’s it — a vaccine of limited efficacy combined with safety measures for the most vulnerable is the best we’ll be able to do. Take it or leave it.

Agree. Unless you think we can keep moving the goalposts from "flatten the curve" to "until there's a vaccine" to "until everybody 100% will never get it". Which of course is a standard we do not apply to any other disease or activity. I think the vaccine developments are cause for great optimism. Thanks for the updates.

Well, yes then it would cease to be a global pandemic. Once we can move off of that then yes we will move forward as a society. I don’t think that can happen until there is a vaccine though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vaccine rolls out in late November for limited use. About a 54-57 percent efficacy rate with limited side effects. That’s when this is over, for all intents and purposes.

Can you please explain your last sentence?
Seems like the efficacy rate of that vaccine isn't high enough to provide herd immunity.

And that's assuming everyone will take it (or even most people).

It's also assuming that there will be enough of the vaccine to go around and not just be rolled out "for limited use"

Just curious to hear your thoughts, thanks!

Meaning that’s when this is over from a psychological perspective. Sure, others who were not in the early groups (military, first responders, etc.) may choose to get the vaccine. That would be good. But that’s it — a vaccine of limited efficacy combined with safety measures for the most vulnerable is the best we’ll be able to do. Take it or leave it.

Agree. Unless you think we can keep moving the goalposts from "flatten the curve" to "until there's a vaccine" to "until everybody 100% will never get it". Which of course is a standard we do not apply to any other disease or activity. I think the vaccine developments are cause for great optimism. Thanks for the updates.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vaccine rolls out in late November for limited use. About a 54-57 percent efficacy rate with limited side effects. That’s when this is over, for all intents and purposes.

Can you please explain your last sentence?
Seems like the efficacy rate of that vaccine isn't high enough to provide herd immunity.

And that's assuming everyone will take it (or even most people).

It's also assuming that there will be enough of the vaccine to go around and not just be rolled out "for limited use"

Just curious to hear your thoughts, thanks!

Meaning that’s when this is over from a psychological perspective. Sure, others who were not in the early groups (military, first responders, etc.) may choose to get the vaccine. That would be good. But that’s it — a vaccine of limited efficacy combined with safety measures for the most vulnerable is the best we’ll be able to do. Take it or leave it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vaccine rolls out in late November for limited use. About a 54-57 percent efficacy rate with limited side effects. That’s when this is over, for all intents and purposes.

Can you please explain your last sentence?
Seems like the efficacy rate of that vaccine isn't high enough to provide herd immunity.

And that's assuming everyone will take it (or even most people).

It's also assuming that there will be enough of the vaccine to go around and not just be rolled out "for limited use"

Just curious to hear your thoughts, thanks!

Meaning that’s when this is over from a psychological perspective. Sure, others who were not in the early groups (military, first responders, etc.) may choose to get the vaccine. That would be good. But that’s it — a vaccine of limited efficacy combined with safety measures for the most vulnerable is the best we’ll be able to do. Take it or leave it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NYT story last weekend (sorry, I thought someone else had already mentioned it). The gist is that the PCR tests most commonly used in the US have a range of calibrations for what counts as positive, and NYT analysis was that 50-90 (!) percent of cases reported as "positive" are likely cases where the viral load is very unlikely to be high enough to make the individual sick or contagious.

The article then reports that the cheaper, faster, less sensitive tests would likely be just as good at detecting cases where the viral load is high enough to be dangerous or contagious.

that's not exactly right. the article states that the low-viral load positives could just be early in the course of the infection. the main scientist quoted advocates for repeat testing, not declaring that there are actually 50% fewer cases than we actually think there are.

That’s not exactly what the article or pp said. The point was that a significant # of people who have been diagnosed have some level of virus in their body, but it is at such low levels that they are not contagious. They should be quarantined, but we shouldn’t be wasting resources on contact tracing with them. We should focus contact tracing on those who are truly contagious. They do also suggest more frequent, less sensitive test for this reason, as better use of resources.

Since I read the Times piece I’ve been curious why there isn’t more talk about this. Seems like 1) it’s good news overall and 2) makes the case for cheaper more accessible rapid testing that people can repeat at home

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vaccine rolls out in late November for limited use. About a 54-57 percent efficacy rate with limited side effects. That’s when this is over, for all intents and purposes.

Can you please explain your last sentence?
Seems like the efficacy rate of that vaccine isn't high enough to provide herd immunity.

And that's assuming everyone will take it (or even most people).

It's also assuming that there will be enough of the vaccine to go around and not just be rolled out "for limited use"

Just curious to hear your thoughts, thanks!