2/ The referenced tweet. (Note that this doesn’t mean vaccines are ineffective. They’re very effective at preventing severe illness. The question is how much they stop transmission when relied too much upon.)
3/ I meant “the effectiveness of vaccine-only-entrance” towards containing transmission (which is important to protect both the unvaccinated & few unlucky vaccinated, and reduce the likelihood of variants)
It’s prob an effective measure re: reducing hospitalizations and deaths
5/ For the record, I don’t think that “vaccinated-only-entry” policies are ineffective but that they are only partially effective, and while probably an epidemiological net positive in some contexts, they might be negative in eg allowing night clubs instead of keeping them closed
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
3/ To clarify the previous point: imagine a boat with 50 vaccinated and 500 unvaccinated; 5 of each are in the ICU, and 2 of each die. Does it mean that the vaccine offers no excess protection, because the ratio "vax deaths / vax in ICU" is the same as novax's?
Make a FAQ on the risks of COVID vaccines that clearly answers:
- risks & unknowns for a teenager
- …for a 30 yo
- …for ladies planning a pregnancy
- how we know that
Things that many people hesitant about the vaccination DON'T care about:
- how mRNA works
- how safe doctors think it is
- if the average person is better off vaccinating
Things they want to know:
- short- and long-term risks
- how probable for people like them
- how do we know
DO VACCINES INCREASE THE RISK OF A MORE CONTAGIOUS VARIANT?
Short answer: they do relatively but not absolutely.
Long answer in the thread below.
1/N
2/ There are indications from previous research that the vaccinated tend to select for strains that resist vaccines (probably) and for more dangerous strains (perhaps).
But, this is in relative terms. What we care about are absolute ones.
One my dearest friends recently got victim of credit card fraud.
Some non-obvious learnings:
1/ The first 8 digits of your card can be derived from who your bank is. Don't get tricked in "giving digits 9 to 12 for control purpose" – it might be all a fraudster needs.
2/ Fraudster can call or send SMS from what looks like your bank's number.
If you receive a suspect call from your bank, ask who's calling (and if they have an employee code), then hang up, google the bank's number, call it yourself, and ask for the person who called.
3/ Fraudsters can know many details of your life, including your bank and account number, mobile phone model, recent purchases, etc.
They might have an accomplice in your town, going through your mail in your trash bin (that's what I suspect happened with my friend).
In a country with say 50% vaccinated, on average, less than 50% of the contacts of a person with COVID are vaccinated (because vaccinations aren’t homogeneous).
One reason why many places are still seeing cases grow despite more and more vaccinations.
Also cases aren’t homogeneous; see this map from September 2020.
(Also, the blue areas dispel the myth that lockdowns cause an increase in deaths - they display areas in which fewer people died compared to previous years).
It’s the sum of two considerations:
1) Given 50% vaccination rate (say), a person that gets the virus has a >>50% chance of not being vaccinated.
2) A non-vaccinated person is more likely than average to be part of a non-vaccinated family, to have non-vaccinated friends, etc
2/ First, the basics. The antifragile (a term coined by Nassim Nicholas Taleb in his homonymous book) is what benefits from variation, usage, problems, and feedback.
Example: using our muscles to lift weights makes them stronger.
3/ The antifragile also exhibits robust and fragile behaviors.
(In the picture below, the former diagram represents the fragile and the latter represents the antifragile.)