Were you not cautioning me upthread that 90% efficacy still meant 10% were exposed? Would not the interaction between any two random individuals result in a 1% risk of new infection in that scenario? 1% of 331 million would seem to be a potential viral reservoir of 3+ million even at 100% compliance, would that not be sufficient to drive ongoing mutation (without even considering migration from other parts of the world)?
Yes, I don't know how much mutation it will take for a coronavirus to become resistant to a vaccine. But AIUI, the less replication the better.
I can relate to that. I'm not going to try to jump the line, but if no new concerns arise I'll take it when it's my turn.I'm not saying don't get vaccinated, I'm just willing to let you go first.
The hope and expectation is that we get enough people vaccinated in combination with the previously-infected to produce herd immunity. Durability of immunity is obviously a question. What I'm seeing in the re-infection reports is that almost no one has a serious infection twice, so that's hopeful.I am uneasy when people will argue that herd immunity won't work but a vaccine will (although it would seem both rely on the same immune mechanisms)
Edit: the arguments against herd immunity without a vaccine was that it would produce too much disease and death, and possibly even more economic damage in the process .
Last edited: