Prof Francois BallouxKonto zweryfikowane

I appreciate this stance may seem slightly counterintuitive. Though, it is primarily based on the two lines of evidence below. 2/

1. Even many of richest countries will fail to achieve high vaccination coverage before the peak of the pandemic will be largely over. Vaccinating people for #COVID19 throughout the world will take several years, if it ever happened. 3/

2. Immunisation by the incoming vaccines may be fairly easy for #SARSCoV2 to bypass. We already know about at least two major 'vaccine / monoclonal antibody escape mutations' that have been rising in frequency even before vaccination has started. 4/

#COVID19 would be most effectively made 'endemic' by a mix of infection and vaccination. Given the fairly short 'sterilising' immunisation period, many people will be vaccinated/infected multiple times. Though, successive infections are expected to be generally less severe. 5/

The scenario delineated in this thread is in line with the last three influenza pandemics (1957/1968/2009), where vaccines played a role in keeping mortality down in limited parts of the world but didn't make much of a difference globally. 6/

We are in a slightly better position with #COVID19 as vaccines are concerned, relative to past influenza pandemics. There is a real opportunity to keep mortality down, at least in rich countries, by focusing vaccination efforts towards some of the most 'at risk' in society. 7/

Some may believe that the arrival of vaccines has made the discussion about #COVID19 suppression vs. mitigation redundant. It hasn't really. What it does is to offer a far more palatable option than 'physical sheltering' to protect many of the most 'at-risk' in society. 8/

The #COVID19 pandemic is a highly complex problem. Complex problems don't tend to have straightforward solutions, they only offer tradeoffs, no easy ones. 8/