A useful point to show why vaccines are so important - even though this is WELL below herd immunity rates, the vaccines already done so far in NSW have probably slowed down this outbreak significantly
Let's think this through - @NSWHealth reports 1.9m vaccine doses, which based on previous figures is probably ~1.5m first and .4m second doses
With a population of 8.2m, that's about 20% of the population vaccinated at least once
Let's assume that all of this was Astrazeneca, with an estimated vaccine efficacy (protection against infection) of somewhere around 70%, and think about some different scenarios of the reproductive number (R)
With a standard R0 of 2.6 for COVID-19, and 20% vaccinated with AZ, we'd expect that the virus would infect about 14% fewer people on average, so our effective reproductive number (Rt) goes down to 2.2
Now that doesn't sound like all that much, perhaps, but it is similar to the level of reduction that previous studies have seen from other interventions against COVID-19 such as school closures and the like nature.com/articles/s4158…
If our R0 started at 4 (let's say a very transmissible variant) we might expect to see a reduction to about 3.4 from this level of vaccination alone
This sort of reduction might be the difference between, say, masks stopping the outbreak entirely and needing to implement further measures
And what if we had 40% vaccinated? Or 50%? We might not need anything other than the excellent contact tracing system we already have to keep a lid on this sort of outbreak!
This has been your daily thread of why you should all go and get your vaccines, specific to NSW Australia but also for everyone else because the same thing applies no matter where you live
Also, worth noting that at a vaccination rate of 70%, even if you assume Astrazeneca is only 70% effective, you're looking at about a 50% reduction in R0 which means that contact tracing will probably be enough to completely prevent any outbreaks
Oh, also worth noting this is with totally naïve estimates of the spread of the disease. If we've vaccinated the people most likely to spread COVID-19 (which we may have to some extent) then the Rt could be a fair bit lower
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This new systematic review/meta-analysis of ivermectin for COVID-19 has come out, and everyone's asking me to review it
My take - decent study, but the devil's in the details 1/n
2/n The study is here. Because it's about ivermectin, and people are super weird about that specific drug, everyone's going wild with an Altmetric of 8,641 in the week since publication journals.lww.com/americantherap…
3/n I should say that my position on ivermectin previously has been that there is some interesting evidence but that most of the studies are low quality so it's hard to say much (even the one or two high-quality studies aren't very conclusive)
Another day, another viral article being cited as proof that ivermectin can cure COVID-19
The newest example is even more depressing than previous ones somehow 1/n
2/n The paper is here, and mostly it's just a perspective piece in a minor Nature offshoot (Journal of Antibiotics, IF 2.4) written by two members of what I can only describe as a pro-ivermectin advocacy group nature.com/articles/s4142…
3/n The advocacy group is called Front Line COVID Critical Care Alliance, and has a very flashy website that basically advocates for ivermectin (and vitamin D, melatonin, and mouthwash) as the cure of all COVID ills
There's a reasonable basis for arguing that at a population level there might be some reduction in cancer rates if people stopped eating PROCESSED red meat
Less strong is the argument that eating non-processed red meat might impact cancer rates - even if there is some reduction, it would be pretty modest at a population level
The trick is to be honest about the probabilities and what we know
So, for example, if you are worried about freedom, don't misuse vaccine reporting systems to make up fake concerns. Just talk about the issue you care about
The problem is that most of the time the issues that people care about are not really interesting or realistic. "Oh no they might force kids to get a vaccine" is a tired, tedious line
Instead, people who are against COVID-19 vaccines for whatever reason tend to go with arguments that are a lot less accurate but a lot more emotive, which is where the issues with the discussion come in
In the first scenario, which most scientists espouse, we can't rule out the possibility that COVID-19 came from a lab, but it's the least likely explanation by a fair bit
Still needs looking in to!
In the second scenario, people have aggregated bizarre and nonsensical arguments into an impenetrable morass of vague thinking that supposedly means something - this is why I say it's like a conspiracy theory