[eigenrick]

I think the issue is that public policy is based around two flawed notions that omicron has brought to light:

1. The vaccines will become decreasingly relevant, unless we can provide technology to update vaccines as quickly as they mutate. Even then, it'll be like flu vaccines. They'll help, but won't stop the spread.

2. Barring some technological breakthrough, Covid will never go away. We'll all contract it. Then it will mutate and well contact it again in the next year, and the next, forever

As such, our current policies are ineffective, and lockdown is by no means sustainable forever.

[freewilly1040]

I would add a 3rd flawed notion: that COVID is COVID, all variants are to be avoided at all costs.

At this point we've got well established indications of omicron being an unserious infection (sparing the lungs entirely, being no more than a bad cold for the vast majority of those who contract it). Not 1000% confirmed, of course ongoing study is warranted, but it would be shocking if omicron turns out to be a serious driver of illness and death.

But policy makers and media commentators are allergic to optimism on what this implies long term, so we are stuck in a state of alarm.

[axby]

> The vaccines will become decreasingly relevant, unless we can provide technology to update vaccines as quickly as they mutate. Even then, it'll be like flu vaccines. They'll help, but won't stop the spread.

Interesting, I haven't been following the pandemic as closely as I used to, but I was under the impression that the existing mRNA vaccines still work fairly well against new variants (including omicron), but that effectiveness goes down after 6 months (hence boosters). I'm not really sure if "effectiveness" is in preventing severe illness or transmission.

[eigenrick]

I'm not a virologist, but I interpret "omicron has a likelihood of 88% to escape current vaccines" as being rather ineffective. I've not found similar stats for Delta or other, but the authors of this paper seem to indicate that current vaccines aren't great against omicron.

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jcim.1c01451#

[axby]

Thanks for the source, I've been so curious about this information but it's hard to find.

I should have said "relatively effective", since I'm also under the impression that the vaccines weren't super effective at reducing transmission of the original variant (compared to vaccines against other infections). But I also haven't seen much data, I vaguely remember hearing something from the WHO like "60% effective at reducing transmission of original variant, 40% effective against Delta", but I don't remember.

[kcplate]

The real problem is the word “vaccine”. The mRNA vaccines do not really work in a way that other vaccines do, and more importantly how we understand other vaccines to work.

Prior to this pandemic the layman understanding of a vaccine was that they generally prevented you from “contracting” the disease. You get the shot, you don’t get the disease. We were basically sold this notion for the mRNA vaccines early in 2021. However, the reality was different. Whether by way of mutation, or simply by the way the mRNA vaccines only work against a specific portion of the virus, mRNA tech seems to not be as effective at the prevention of infection but better at the prevention of severe infection. In essence, it’s not a “vaccine” as the public understood the word. However, it is a tool, and still a relevant one in diminishing the severity of the pandemic, it’s just a shame that the expectations that were set were way off.

[doktorhladnjak]

The issue isn’t with mRNA vaccines. There are conventional vaccines for COVID used in other countries like China and they’re even less effective. It seems to have more to do with respiratory viruses or coronaviruses specifically.

I also don’t know of a time in history where a vaccine was developed for an emerging disease as opposed to one that was already endemic with a lot of natural immunity around.

[axby]

TL;DR: I agree that the public thought vaccine = no more virus. But I'm not sure if traditional vaccines actually mean that you're incapable of spreading it, or even getting sick in some cases.

I agree that the public was misled as to how effective vaccines would be at preventing transmission. Especially when the CDC said that fully vaccinated people didn't need to wear masks.

But how much more effective are traditional vaccines at preventing spread of illnesses? Wikipedia pointed me to this CDC page:

> The MMR vaccine is very safe and effective. Two doses of MMR vaccine are about 97% effective at preventing measles; one dose is about 93% effective. [0]

[0]: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/measles/index.html

I was always under the impression that traditional vaccines were really effective, enough that the virus stops spreading eventually, but not enough that you are almost totally incapable of spreading the virus or even getting sick. Like the outbreaks in disneyland, obviously they only happened because of people being unvaccinated, but my understanding is that vaccinated people can still get sick from it. I found this Washington Post article:

> A 2015 measles outbreak linked to Disneyland led to 147 cases in multiple states as well as in Mexico and Canada. Many of those who were sickened were unvaccinated or did not know their vaccine record, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2019/08/24/tourist-inf...

[kcplate]

I think if the covid vaccines managed to have a MMR level (90%+) preventive effect against symptomatic infection rather than 20% (I can’t find where I read that stat, it might be wrong, but I don’t think by much) against symptomatic infection, you would find less skepticism in the existing covid vaccines.

At this stage, despite being fully vaccinated and boosted, I absolutely expect to be exposed to and symptomatic from Omicron in the next 45 days.

[CogitoCogito]

What do you mean by "skepticism in the existing covid vaccines"? Are you saying that people are disapointed that the vaccines aren't better at preventing disease and spread? I'm pretty sure that everyone falls into that category. But is there anything better available? Is there any better strategy than trying to continue to improve the vaccines and do more research hoping to someday get a handle on this?

If we compare these vaccines to non-existent ones that we believe should be better, then we are disappointed. If we compare them to the possibility of having developed worse vaccines, then we would be elated.

[kcplate]

I mean that when you advertise that something is going to do a thing (end the disease; prevent them from catching it), encouraging people to get the vaccine because of those benefits. Then the reality is discovered to be that it doesn’t do any of those things, but it does provide a milder experience…and oh by the way, and that efficacy only lasts a few months, so go get another booster dose ASAP.

That makes people skeptical.

Right now I know probably 5-6x the number of vaccinated people who have had Covid post vaccination than people who had it prior to the vaccine being available. I know unvaccinated people who have never had Covid, and vaccinated people who have had it twice…post vaccination.

Am I vaccinated, yes. Am I skeptical of the existing vaccines to prevent me from getting Covid and ending the pandemic, yes.

[brandonmenc]

> Prior to this pandemic the layman understanding of a vaccine was that they generally prevented you from “contracting” the disease. You get the shot, you don’t get the disease.

afaik the flu vaccine has for decades been advertised as:

"might not always prevent, but will usually lessen symptoms"

So I'm not sure why people think this is a new thing.

[kcplate]

The flu is understood to be different, seasonal, yearly variants. It’s also why at least in the US it’s characterized as the “flu shot” as opposed to the flu “vaccine”.

Vaccines like MMR and others are understood to be generally preventative and rarely need booster if after initial doses.

Think about things that generally require boosters…they are almost always referred to by the laymen as “shots”. Nobody calls the tetnus shot a tetnus “vaccine”.

[brandonmenc]

I get what you're saying, and it makes sense, but people also often say "shots" when referring to childhood vaccines (ex: "did they get their shots yet?") They also say things like "rabies shots" and "diptet shot."

And coronavirus is also understood to be seasonal.

However, in spite of all that, I agree that the official messaging throughout this pandemic has been so inconsistent - from masking to "two weeks to flatten the curve" to "boosters" - that the public does have a right to be skeptical and exhausted.