Changing the quarantine
-
I’m only a humble engineer, but 70% sounds a lot better than 0%
-
I’m only a humble engineer, but 70% sounds a lot better than 0%
@doctor-phibes said in Changing the quarantine:
I’m only a humble engineer, but 70% sounds a lot better than 0%
I was about to say, I'd take 10%. Or 70, or 90.
-
@jolly said in Changing the quarantine:
Bottom Line?
We're fucked, vaccination status irrelevant. Vaccine effectiveness against Omicron looks to be only 70%, at best.
I thought 70% was supposed to be really good? The J&J vaccine was hailed as a game changer at 70% efficacy?
@lufins-dad said in Changing the quarantine:
I thought 70% was supposed to be really good? The J&J vaccine was hailed as a game changer at 70% efficacy?
The J&J's "game changer" moniker came not from its 70% efficacy but from it's logistical simplicity -- J&J vaccine was thought to require only "one shot" (as opposed to "two shots" like Pfizer and Moderna), and J&J vaccine can be stored/transported at higher temperatures than Pfizer/Moderna -- these two factors were expected to make the J&J vaccine's distribution, storage, and administration a lot easier, especially for poorer countries. A lot of that "game changer" talk happened before the 70% efficacy number came out, and the "game changer" talk has died down quite a bit since.
With the original SARS-CoV-2's transmissibility, "70%" is actually not that bad, especially if 100% of the population take the vaccines. But two things happened: less than 70% of the US population want to be vaccinated (so 70% x 70% = 49%; too low for herd immunity); then Delta and now Omicron came along, their increased transmissibility raised the threshold for herd immunity.
So the J&J vaccine is not longer getting much love, and the US government has since advise those who received only one shot of J&J to go get another shot.
-
@jolly said in Changing the quarantine:
I don't think herd immunity exists with COVID.
Not without a monthly shot with the current vaccines. The Walter Reed and other vaccines still in development may yet change that story. Of course, COVID may have evolved into the common cold by the time they arrive.
-
You have got to be freaking kidding me.
-
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/29/health/us-coronanavirus-wednesday/index.html
CDC director explains new Covid-19 guidance as the US heads into a harrowing phase of the pandemic
-
Science and our knowledge is constantly evolving, with the speed of this change increasing in todays modern time.
1000 years ago, the absolute smartest people who were alive at the time (probably considered geniuses) would for sure argue that the sun revolved around the earth. Does that make them stupid? Of course not. Based on the information and knowledge that they had at the time and previous knowledge people had, they made their best analyses.
I sometimes get the feeling that people think that scientists around the world are part of some secret conspiracy regarding COVID and the information the relay to the people. For the most part, information/restrictions/"mandates" around the world are pretty similar.
From countries with very liberal governments to those who are very authorityism , there is not much difference what the rules are in each country. (Or course there are some "outliers", but not too many).
So, to say that the US (for example) is "changing the rules" or "they dont know what they are talking about" seems to ignore that the rest of world is basically doing the same thing.
Things are evolving and there is an expectation in todays world for instantaneous action and response.
(YES, I UNDERSTAND IN THIS CASE, THE US SEEMS TO BE ALONE IN REDUCING THE QUARANTINE AMOUNT)
