As often happens, the headline is too simple for the more subtle message of the article washingtonpost.com/outlook/corona…
The article's main point is unarguable: "we cannot control the delta variant by maximizing the immunity of only a segment of the population."
But some (incl me) have thought the main goal of vaccination all along should be to defang (make less harmful) not defeat (eliminate) the virus.
The vaccines' protection against Delta depends on the level of immunity in a person when they are exposed. Much lab evidence points to the fact that this declines with time, and independently is lower in older people (who were in most places also vaxed first).
The data are not available yet, but vaccine protection is clearly a function of variant as well as age,time since vaccination, and severity of disease, with signs -,-, and + for the last three.
While it remains true that two doses of a vaccine will do more good fully immunizing one person than boosting two more (for typical people), that is not the decision problem we face. There is no reason, if the rationale for boosters becomes compelling, to trade off promoting...
vaccinating more people vs. a third shot for those who can benefit. What we need now is data on the effectiveness of the 2-dose regimen against severe outcomes in the earliest vaccinated, most vulnerable people, which may change over time.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
