Alabama & Missippi are in hi 30s. Vermont in hi 60s (of total pop). So in best case maybe we could hope to get them to catch up, +30. But some of those were already-infected, at least 1/3?, so you’re not saving lives that much by vaxxing those. +20?
But also, the holdouts, they presumably tilt younger. The overall IFR of 0.5-0.6% doesn’t apply to the ones we’d be hoping to reach. Maybe it’s more like 0.1% on average?
So we’re hoping to save 20%*0.1%=0.02%, 2 per 10k lives that will otherwise be lost by vax-fretting.
So we’re hoping to save 20%*0.1%=0.02%, 2 per 10k lives that will otherwise be lost by vax-fretting.
Of course it’s something less than that in this example because the vaccine doesn’t actually save all lives, esp with the Indian strain, it’s 90% of that, so maybe more like 18 per 100k.
But also, people are still vaccinating, it didn’t flatline, there’s linear growth, which presumably could accelerate post-FDA. Those lives aren’t available to save with a vax-fretting campaign, they’re gonna get there.
was meant to be a thread below this
https://twitter.com/soncharm/status/1430352996274159616
All my numbers wrong obv, but still. Anyway just making my usual mistake of thinking how policies (vax passports, employer mandates) could make sense & be justified
vax evidently doesn’t really slow spread much if at all so that’s not it
It’s about saving unvaxxed lives then?
vax evidently doesn’t really slow spread much if at all so that’s not it
It’s about saving unvaxxed lives then?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
