If variant evolution occurs primarily in IC folks, the need for global vaccination is *greater* vs. evolution in gen pop. IC folks are less likely to mount a protective immune response after vaccination, reducing infections in this pop requires more, not less, herd immunity.
I think I wrote enough long-form on this to explain my concern, especially with how the intended target (purely selfish, rational, informed person) could reasonably draw other conclusions. But this may move policy people regardless, so if that works, guess that works.
-
-
I guess a lot of us are still confused about the argument about why global vaccination is not imperative to stopping variant — ignoring the messaging for a second.
-
Why does the fact that e.g. variants develop in immunocomprimised people impact the ability of global vaccination to reduce the development of variants? I guess my quibble is with the framing that this is just a messaging issue, versus an actual public health imperative?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
On HIV history: I do know there were arguments like that by drug companies, and I may well be misremembering public-facing ones as I wasn’t around or here for most of it. But I do know what worked was a mix of activism plus “legacy”—not a rational calculation by selfish masses.
-
Two things. There wasn’t a rational self interest argument for HIV tx expansion made, because there was none, unlike for COVID. And, I think we need to be careful saying that it “worked” , considering it took years and millions of unnecessary deaths to get access.
- Show replies
New conversation -
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.