[tyre]

From the linked article[0]:

“Yes, Moderna’s vaccine prevents transmission. One dose is good for reducing infection by 63%, two by over 90%.”

The number of people you need to vaccinate with a 63% effective vaccine versus a 90% effective vaccine is a huge gap.

There are two issues with vaccines that staring at these numbers won’t tell you:

1. Not everyone is going to get vaccinated.

2. The number of people who will get vaccinated is directly correlated with public trust.

If you release a vaccine that is 63% effective, the “this vaccine doesn’t work crowd” and their hugely amplified voices on YouTube and social media will be exponentially worse.

That snowballs into fewer people being vaccinated. Unlikely for us, with a less effective vaccine we need far more people being vaccinated.

So you want a more effective vaccine because fewer people need to get vaccinated, more people will trust the vaccine, and more people will get vaccinated.

(To pre-empt the bad-faith replies, this does _not_ mean we would sacrifice another six months to get a 98% effective vaccine (if it were possible) versus starting now. It’s a balance, of course.)

Also very important is that a second dose isn’t just for effectiveness, it’s to boost the immune system’s response so that the conferred immunity lasts significantly longer.

[0]: I struggled through this article. I find this self-congratulating “I’m smarter than everyone and I told you so in this other blog post” writing insufferable.

[cm2187]

Also the “I don’t trust a vaccine approved by the Trump administration” crowd. It was hugely irresponsible to politicise the vaccine.

[jfoster]

I'm not American so I could be way off on this, but I can't help but wonder if the politicization might've actually helped in this case? My big assumption is that Trump supporters would normally be more skeptical of vaccines. If non-supporters would trust the vaccine regardless, then perhaps politicizing it just means that more Trump supporters would also take it?

[sverhagen]

This will be overcome. It was about trusting the scientists instead of the White House. I'm fine with it now. But didn't they pressure that CDC director to approve it that day or get fired? They were probably going to approve already. But what if they weren't far enough along and some of this nonsense would've played out like that? It'd have been very harmful for the trust in the vaccine.

[skocznymroczny]

Also the "don't trust big pharma crowd", but apparently big pharma is the best thing ever this year.

[Kye]

I trust the scientists and doctors who've said it's safe and explained the reasons it was approved faster than normal that have nothing to do with Trump, aside from his botched preparing for and handling of the pandemic necessitating it.

[mensetmanusman]

To be fair, the type of people that vacation in Martha’s Vineyard might also be anti vax / anti gmo.

[superkuh]

As someone that has been preparing for an influenza pandemic since 2005 I can tell you that the yearly tri or tetra valent influenza vaccines each year are often, in the last decade mostly, down near 50% protective. And you don't get 2 influenza shots.

This is not something new or special. And people being ignorant should not change how things are properly done. Yes, they're going to freak, but it's because they're idiots. Don't base behavior on what they think. Accomidating them will not change their behavior at all. Their behavior does not reflect external realities.

[BurningFrog]

This argues against only giving one dose instead of two. But no one is proposing that.

The argument is that while there is a vaccine shortage, it is better to give as many as possible one dose, instead of giving only half that many people two doses, leaving the rest unprotected.

When available, everyone gets the second shot, which should work just as well 6 months later.

[neuronic]

> which should work just as well 6 months later

Do you have clinical evidence for that? I doubt it. OP still has a more valid point. Public trust in the vaccine and its apparent effectiveness ASAP after the vaccination campaign begins will be gigantic factors in its success.

We all know that a hard lockdown brings down the new-infection numbers WEEKS after beginning the lockdown, yet there are still a lot of people on Twitter, YT and at demonstrations (at least here in Germany) where folks are angry that the lockdown doesn't work 2 DAYS after its beginning.

The amount of truly wary/ignorant people out there is around 5-15% of the entire population in Germany and handing out a 63%-effective vaccine will be fuel to their bullshit stories.

I wish people would start taking this more seriously. We have a huge chunk of the population (5-15%) where discussions don't work anymore because their arguments aren't based in a common reality (e.g. "viruses exist and may pose a threat" is surprisingly often not a supported opinion).

[ed25519FUUU]

> We all know that a hard lockdown brings down the new-infection numbers WEEKS after beginning the lockdown, yet there are still a lot of people on Twitter, YT and at demonstrations (at least here in Germany) where folks are angry that the lockdown doesn't work 2 DAYS after its beginning.

In the spirit of understanding, in your words what are the biggest arguments against forcing a hard lock down?

[BurningFrog]

> Do you have clinical evidence for that?

I'm no epidemiologist, but I understand this is the how booster vaccine shots typically work.

I care less about public trust and the PR angle, and more about getting as many people protected as possible. If dumb people say dumb things matter much less.

[dwaltrip]

The lesswrong quote seems to be misleading. It links to an article that says the vaccine may prevent / reduce transmission but that it hasn't been proven yet. Did I miss something?

[brobdingnagians]

The British Medical Journal has an article that makes the point, including quotes from Tal Zaks of Moderna, that the studies aren't designed to be statistically significant indicators of disrupting transmission, preventing hospitalisation, or even preventing death:

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4037

So, from what I can tell. It isn't proven to disrupt transmission or reduce hospitalisation/death. It would require much larger or longer studies, which they have opted not to do.

[DiogenesKynikos]

I think lesswrong is wrong here. I looked at the document that lesswrong links, and I couldn't find any statement about effectiveness of the vaccine in preventing infection after two doses.

[thallium205]

Viewpoints like theirs have been completely eradicated off YouTube.