A good question I received today. Let's assume that "COVID is there to stay" and "the vaccination campaign completed" but "there's still breakthrough cases."
Does it matter whether there's a lot of virus circulating (compared to little)?
Does it matter whether there's a lot of virus circulating (compared to little)?
In other words, would it still pay to be cautious? (Not talking about lockdowns, of course, but about wearing masks on public transport and similar measures.)
My intuition would be: it matters, because
- fewer cases → fewer hospitalizations (and deaths), even if hospitalization rates are low
- fewer cases → lower risk of variants
- lower viral load → better outcomes after infection
But I'd love to learn more about the topic.
- fewer cases → fewer hospitalizations (and deaths), even if hospitalization rates are low
- fewer cases → lower risk of variants
- lower viral load → better outcomes after infection
But I'd love to learn more about the topic.
A good point by @mrgrozz and @Nucleics_Inc: one should consider the tradeoff with lowering immunity due to chronic non-exposure to pathogens (COVID and others). More details and nuances in their replies to the thread.
This is a good example of why what’s appropriate in a transition (where a population is half-vaxxed) could be different from what’s appropriate afterwards.
https://twitter.com/dellannaluca/status/1424994358701531137
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
