So do you think that we don't know if the vaccines will reduce transmission at all? That we just don't know? There is no evidence yet? It's a complete unknown?
-
-
Replying to @zeynep
there are data that argue in both directions, have you forgotten about the non-human primate data showing lots of replication but no disease post vaccination? i am optimistic that it will prevent mild infection. until i'm more than optimistic, i'll be honest about what we know!
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @reluctantlyjoe
I'm asking about infectiousness, not whether there's 100% sterilizing immunity. Asking for real: do you believe that we have no idea if vaccines reduce infectiousness? That this is an unknown, and that "we don't know if vaccines will reduce transmission" is the correct statement?
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
honestly "there's no idea" and "we don't know" and "we know" are different things. we're talking about science that will drive policy that will affect hundreds of millions (maybe billions) of human people. this is the highest need for scientific clarity and we aren't there yet!
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @reluctantlyjoe
I'm asking a very very specific question. Is your belief that we don't know if vaccines will reduce transmission and infectiousness among the vaccinated. Once we get through your belief on that, we can discuss adjacent/corollary, what makes people "go wild."
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
actually you're using rhetorical dodges and not arguing in good faith. you think we KNOW that vaccines will prevent transmission. I disagree. i wish we knew that. we have evidence, but it's not strong enough to drive policy and messaging yet.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @reluctantlyjoe @zeynep
and after all this nonsense im very very glad that leaders in the NIH and CDC agree with me, because lord have mercy
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @reluctantlyjoe
Agree with you on what? That we don't know if the vaccines reduce infectiousness? I am genuinely asking. If that's your position, fine, I can argue the rest—which are sociology—based on your assumption. But you need to say what you think on that.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @zeynep
We don't yet have sufficient evidence to be certain that vaccination prevents mild/asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and therefore transmission. That is how people think about vaccines: I get the shot and i'm protected against getting or passing the virus.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @reluctantlyjoe
zeynep tufekci Retweeted A Marm Kilpatrick
Okay. I'd say we *do* know that vaccination prevents mild symptomatic infection (endpoints in phase III trials) by ~%95%—somewhat less for variants. But it does. We do know that it reduces asymptomatic infection substantially. We know reduced viral loads.https://twitter.com/DiseaseEcology/status/1359213768488620034 …
zeynep tufekci added,
A Marm Kilpatrick @DiseaseEcologyIncorporating uncertainty from each component (except Ct-infectiousness correlation) w/ parametric boostrapping produces median reductions of 90% (87-93%) in infection & 91% (89-94%) of transmission (Note: many CIs were not symmetrical so median !=mean/point estimates): pic.twitter.com/4enSxpQvdKShow this thread3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Onto the sociology: the thing that makes people "go wild" is the opposite, it's losing hope that there's an endgame that fuels noncompliance. Right now we have more than a pile of anectodes on this: polls that show blunting transmission is a key motivation for vaccine.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep
i'll trust you as a sociologist! will you trust ME as a molecular microbiologist =)
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.