Here's one way to understand vaccines vs. variants, why they're still good even if there are breakthroughs, and why you should protect yourself even if vaccinated:
Think of the virus like an invading army, and vaccines like your defense army. Thread 🧵
If an enemy army is about to invade, how are you better off: with, or without a defense army?
Obviously, with a defense.
Does it mean you will always win?
No.
The enemy might have lots of soldiers (high viral load), or its soldiers might be seasoned by war (aggressive variants).
The stronger it is, the more likely it is to run over your defenses, ravage you, and kill you.
No vaccine is like no specialized army.
In most cases, you still have the standard defenses against invaders. But your defenses are not used to this new enemy. When attacked, maybe your defenses are strong enough. But maybe they aren't and you die.
The vaccine gives you a specialized defense army.
These are a bunch of soldiers that are trained specifically to fight against this new invader. The first shot will give you soldiers trained to fight the old variant (so less experienced enemies).
The 2nd shot will give you even more of the same soldiers.
That's why it's useful to mix-and-match shots: by sending different training enemies to your defenses, they will learn not to just fight the young, inexperienced enemies from the 1st wave, but a more generic enemy.
A booster will give you even more defense soldiers.
Ideally, you have a booster that is specialized against the more battle-hardened delta soldiers. That will give you defense soldiers specialized against them.
Does it mean with 2 or 3 shots you will always win? Not necessarily.
You might not be able to recruit soldiers at all (eg, you are immunocompromised).
Those you recruit might be weak (eg, you are old / have pre-existing conditions).
You might get a massive invading army (huge viral load of a very aggressive variant) that overwhelms your defense.
But are you better off with a specialized army? Absolutely.
Also, remember this is not win or lose.
What if the forces are pretty equal and the enemy passes your walls? You start fighting in the city, destroying it in the process. Even if you win in the end, the collateral damage is high. That's like a hospitalization.
And that's why, even if vaccinated, you should be careful if you're indoors with lots of other people speaking/talking loudly. Someone can be very infectious without knowing it, send you a massive viral load, and overwhelm your defenses.
So mask up in these circumstances and, better, try to avoid them altogether, until so many people are vaccinated or have natural immunity, that the likelihood that anybody has a massive viral load to spread is super low.
Bottom line: your vaccines are your defense army against the invader army of the virus. The stronger your defense, and the weaker the attacker, the safer you are.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Analogies have a bad rap vs. 1st principles. But both have a role to play.
When should you use Analogies vs. First Principles?
It depends on the novelty-complexity relationship.
The more you've seen a situation, the more you can predict what will happen next without understanding it. The ancients might not have known how the solar system worked, but they knew the sun was going to come up tomorrow.
So you can use analogies when you've seen something a lot and it's very replicable.
That's how a lot of the medical sciences work today, for example. We're not sure how things work, but if they work over and over again, let's keep doing them.
To distribute it, you need to spot it 1st
So how do you spot the future in the present?
Example: COVID
In early March, the future was SK and IT. They had gone through a wave before most other countries. They had taken ≠ measures with ≠ results.
Which one would you rather be?
Defining a successful strategy for COVID was as easy as: "Hey guys, looks like SK is doing it well. Let's do the same!"