The epidemiologist said there is a low probability that a “super variant” may emerge and vaccines don’t work against it. While it’s hard to predict these things, he added, it’s a non-zero probability, which means it cannot be ruled out.
Having been interviewed, and then later seeing the interview in print, on a couple of occasions, I always wonder how conversations like the quote really happened. Here's how I hear it in my head:
Dr. Brilliant: "...and while there could be a 'super variant', there is an extremely low probability of that happening, so while..."
Interviewer: "So what you're saying is that it could happen?"
Dr. Brilliant: "well, yes, there's a non-zero possibility, but that doesn't mean..."
Print article: "Dr. sez possibility of super-killer-hide-yer-daughters-variant has 'non-zero probability' and we should all be very scared!"
Vaccinating whole world takes so much time that it begs the question what is the game plan for countries with zero covid policy? Keep the borders locked forever so the dirty immigrants won't bring them sickness?
> if they do not protect against variants or breakthrough infections?
The vaccines do not provide absolute immunity but they very clearly and obviously provide protection against variants (dramatically reducing the hospitalization and death rate), and against breakthrough infections (dramatically reducing the likelihood of transmission). Your comment is just ignorant misinformation.
The fact that vaccines are not completely bulletproof is known to children and any adult who is interested in a good faith discussion about this: those who have had a flu vaccine are familiar with the very mild form of the flu you can still get. The symptoms are far milder than an unvaccinated flu infection, but vaccines boost your immune system. They do not make you superhumanly immune to disease, and it's preposterous to hold the COVID vaccine to an impossibly high standard.
> The fact that vaccines are not completely bulletproof is known to children and any adult who is interested in a good faith discussion
Ad hominem!
My point is that the vaccine will _not_ make or break this pandemic. We are stuck with this virus and taking part in an activity - regardless of the risk - is futile if the vaccine itself does not stop the spread. I am personally fine bearing a "full strength" COVID-19 infection, or the clot shot itself, but I don't want to because I don't accept the validity of the screeching masses telling me I must.
That doesn't make me uneducated, it makes me slightly anti-social. Deal with it.
Israel and Sweden both have about 10 million people. They both also have had around 1 million vivid infections. But Israel has had less than half as many deaths from covid as Sweden.
People want clearer metrics for when to return to (almost) normal life. Most agree we shouldn't go on like this forever. Humans are social beings who don't like being cooped up and mumbling behind masks. The best metric is hospital usage. If Covid patient levels drop below a threshold, then mandates should be relaxed. A tiered system can also be used so that stronger mandates kick in at different levels
This article does not cite any primary sources and does not present any new information that hasn't already been discussed here multiple times.
The big takeaway from Larry is:
a) elderly people with one or more comorbidities are a vulnerable population and will benefit the most from vaccination and additional booster shots
b) vaccine doses should be moved to developing countries with vulnerable populations that lack access to modern healthcare facilities
- "Brilliant said one group of people needs a booster shot “right away” — those who are 65 years and above, and were fully vaccinated more than six months ago but have a weakened immune system."
- "So those people, I would say, should be given a third dose, a booster right away — as quickly as moving the vaccines to those countries that haven’t had a very high chance to buy them or have access to them. I consider those two things about equal"
Whether we're near the end of the pandemic or not is just semantics and drawing a line in the sand right now is useless.
Having been interviewed, and then later seeing the interview in print, on a couple of occasions, I always wonder how conversations like the quote really happened. Here's how I hear it in my head:
Dr. Brilliant: "...and while there could be a 'super variant', there is an extremely low probability of that happening, so while..."
Interviewer: "So what you're saying is that it could happen?"
Dr. Brilliant: "well, yes, there's a non-zero possibility, but that doesn't mean..."
Print article: "Dr. sez possibility of super-killer-hide-yer-daughters-variant has 'non-zero probability' and we should all be very scared!"