[akrito]

It's because many more people are vaccinated. Assume 100,000 people are vaccinated and 10,000 aren't. If the infection rate in vaccinated population is 5%, and in the unvaccinated population is 50%, then out of 10,000 infected people, 5,000 will be vaccinated and 5,000 won't.

[landemva]

A couple years ago vaccines prevented almost all people from getting sick. Not anymore.

[walterbell]

CDC changed their definition in Sept. 2021, https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article25411126...

> Before the change, the definition for “vaccination” read, “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.” Now, the word “immunity” has been switched to “protection.” The term “vaccine” also got a makeover. The CDC’s definition changed from “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease” to the current “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”

[_djo_]

The CDC's definition has been out of date for years. It turns out that to a large degree sterilising immunity was a myth with only a tiny, tiny fractions of vaccines actually achieving it. [0]

Most just achieve enough reduction in transmission to end or prevent outbreaks by bringing the r0 well below 1.

[0]https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/09/steriliz...

[zerocount]

How convenient that the article, in effect, supports the current agenda of pushing vaccines on everyone. It does this through the angle of sterilizing immunity being unachievable.

It starts off with some Danish guy observing a measels outbreak in Scotland and how the people that had the measels 65 years earlier were not affected by the current outbreak. You can stop reading at that point because it totally ignores that critical part of the story. It then uses this observation as the catalyst for the 'myth' of sterilizing immunity of the measels vaccine. Then it goes into testimony from experts on how we can't prove an infection took place, blah, blah, blah... Right.

So here we go with the wiggle room that eventually justifies the Covid vaccine being given to everyone on earth. Never mind that 65 years later the old people didn't get infected with the measels. Their bodies must have had some seasoned immunity workers who remembered how they handled it last time.

It's never ending. "We don't have proof." "There's not enough evidence." "We can't quantify what defines that." But just to be safe, give this to everyone and punish those that refuse. I can't believe people actually suggest that unvaccinated people not be allowed in the hospital or should just suffer their 'bad decisions.' Really? Is that what it's come to?

[_djo_]

‘Convenient’, or unsurprising because it’s just recording the current scientific consensus around vaccines and that’s the same thing driving current policy? Not everything is a conspiracy with malevolent intent.

For all the damage that COVID has wreaked, it’s providing a huge increase in the amount of attention, effort, and investment going into studying the immune system, vaccination, and infectious diseases in general. It’s not surprising that some older ideas and theories are being overturned or modified.

You’re also wrongly treating the vaccines’ effect on transmission as binary, either being fully sterilising or not. In truth they’re all able to reduce transmission somewhat from 20-50%, and that alone might be a good enough benefit to mandate full vaccination across the population.

[brazzy]

Most vaccines never had 100% effectiveness, especially the flu vaccine.

[zerocount]

Yep. That wasn't the goal for the Covid vaccine. It was to keep people from getting severe cases and preventing deaths. It works, but it should be targeted to high-risk individuals and not a blanket strategy that's not needed for the majority of the world's population.

[tomjen3]

I don't think the flu one ever did, and smallpox, rabies and Measels probably still do, though I wouldn't recommend testing it.

[ramesh31]

You need 90%+ vaccination rates to start seeing herd immunity, which is what we have for things like MMR.

[hcurtiss]

It wasn’t that long ago that the scientists were suggesting 70% was sufficient. Is it that >90% is required when the vaccines don’t effectively impede transmission? Is it possible 100% would not be sufficient?

[usrusr]

It's been clear for a long time that even 100% won't make the virus disappear. Yes, back in the early days when we didn't use the greek alphabet yet eradication was a reasonably possible best case outcome (though not really likely, given the transmissibility across species.

Look at how prevalent pre-delta variants are now: no, they have not disappeared because almost everybody had delta, they have disappeared because of vaccine shots combined with moderate (compared to 2020) NPI. A virus strain does not simply disappear because there's a new one in town, it keeps replicating until it runs out of hosts. And virions are certainly not defecting to a newer, more glorious flag (like humans might do)

[beberlei]

The 70% number was often mentioned when the original variant was still predominant end of last year. Alpha and Delta are just so much more transmissible. The vaccine was never said to prevent all infections by serious scientists

[_djo_]

70% would have been workable for the original or 'wild type' strain. Delta and Omicron are many times more transmissible.

[lukevdp]

Yes it is, it depends on the efficacy of the vaccine and the transmissibility of the virus.

[landemva]

Does a prior infected person count toward herd immunity? I have Dr. letter of my recovery.

I heard those who had it and recovered have sterilizing immunity. Is that better or worse than the vaccine non-sterilizing immunity for getting us to herd immunity?

[usrusr]

Herd immunity counts nothing against delta or omicron. The endemic state, a permanent balance between immunity vaning and reinfection, that's not herd immunity. Natural immunity is just as temporary as vaccine immunity, give or take a few months.

[joshuahughes]

"Natural immunity is just as temporary as vaccine immunity, give or take a few months."

Citations needed for that claim. Based on the articles below, natural immunity seems to be vastly longer lasting...

Lasting immunity found after recovery from COVID-19 https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/lasting...

Had COVID? You’ll probably make antibodies for a lifetime https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01442-9

[ripe]

The concluding para from your Nature article says the opposite of what you're claiming, and supports the person you're replying to:

"the persistence of antibody production, whether elicited by vaccination or by infection, does not ensure long-lasting immunity to COVID-19. The ability of some emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants to blunt the protective effects of antibodies means that additional immunizations may be needed to restore levels, says Ellebedy. “My presumption is, we will need a booster.”"

[usrusr]

There is plenty of evidence of natural immunity decaying. It will likely never (not in a lifetime) fall to a level equal to an entirely unprepared immune system, but the same holds for vaccine effect: immune system responses are a log decay, with various nonlinear effects applied (thresholds, saturation, the occasional rare ADE and so on) to different aspects that are of different importance for different viruses so that the observed curves look a bit different in each case. Yes, for some viruses, even what's left after a century is enough.

But those details are completely besides the point for endemic state, endemic state is endemic state wether reinfection, on average happens every quarter or wether it happens every five years. The only difference is that anything larger than a few months will lead to massive seasonality, and longer cycles will lead to a larger severity spread. This severity spread will be the decisive factor in the question of revaccination thresholds (maybe higher than current flu shot habits, maybe lower, maybe about the same), but there are far too many uncertainties to bother with concrete predictions.

What we do know: a year or two from now there won't be any vaccine-only immunities left, everybody will either be vacc+infection or infection only.

[walterbell]

In the Denmark numbers above, only 4.3% of Omicron infections were Covid-recovered, compared to 77% being double-vax, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29633285

[meheleventyone]

For that to be meaningful you need to compare the per capita rate of vaccinated and prior covid infected. That’ll show you very roughly how much protection each provides in a way that’s comparable.

[usrusr]

With hardly more than 10% recovered, total, vs almost everybody vaccinated that's not much of a difference. Very well within the range of methodical difference like in which group those recovered and vaccinated are counted and so on.

[garmaine]

Why don’t you get the jab? It would be strictly better to have both.

[rabuse]

Anecdotal, but I got my first bought of covid in Feb. 2020, and it was very flu-like for me. I've had 2 more infections after that (one, didn't even know, and the next was like a mild cold). In South Florida, we barely had a lockdown.

[beberlei]

How do you even know it was COVID? It could have been any number of flu/cold? In feb 20 there was no way to get tested for it

[rabuse]

The complete loss of smell and taste, was never a flu symptom to me before.

[avereveard]

It's not a sustainable business, once polio was eradicated from territory, you lost all sales. New vaccines are more of what we'd call a subscription model.