
How will the world vaccinate seven billion? - pmoriarty
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53741966
======
zaro
Why would we need that? I think a lot of people will get immunity the natural
way, even now a lot of people are having covid w/o any symptoms at all, and
they will have immunity.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Not sure this immunity lasts long? So immunizing a herds-worth in a small
period (2 weeks? 2 months?) might be a thing.

~~~
zaro
I am also not sure how long it lasts but I fail to see why it will matter
whether you got the immunity from a vaccine or the normal way.

And let's say everybody get vaccine in 2 weeks period of time, if the immunity
doesn't last at least few years what's the point of this mass vaccination
then.

~~~
xbmcuser
It will stop the spread and die out if everyone gets a vaccination in short
period. The virus can't survive outside a host very long so if everyone is
immune even for a short period it has no one to spread to. It can be done
country by country. Then only people that get the vaccination are allowed
inside a country that is immune.

~~~
AstralStorm
That is very unlikely to happen, if only because vaccines do not have anywhere
close to 100% success rate and many people won't be vaccinated due to health
reasons alone. Plus there will be animal reservoirs.

Nothing has this kind of success rates. Vaccine, if effective, reduces risk of
vulnerable groups and transmission from their caretakers. Exactly like flu
vaccination.

Heck, we have failed to eradicate polio in all countries, a level 1 virus much
easier to control. I predict zero chance we can eradicate a level 2 virus
right now.

------
Nitrolo
I'm a bit surprised to see so much opposition to vaccination here on HN, I
would have thought that this would be a very pro-science and pro-vaccination
crowd.

As far as my understanding goes, herd immunity is not a real alternative to
vaccinations. Herd immunity means that a very large percentage of the
population, spread evenly across every community, would have to be infected
and recover, another commenter cited a source estimating between 50% and
80%[0].

This means getting basically everybody infected, the reason a vaccine would be
necessary is that we don't want everybody to get infected because it carries
significant risks to health and life with it.

Also the timeframe needed to reach such high percentages of immunity would be
very long. Looking at the US, if you assume a continued infection rate of 50
000 new infections each day (much more would probably mean overwhelming
hospital capacities) it would take 8 years just to reach the 50% threshold, 13
years to reach 80%. Lot of time and suffering saved by going the vaccine
route.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity#Mechanics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity#Mechanics)

~~~
NoOneNew
Not opposed to vaccines. Opposed to rushed, poorly tested, politicized
pharmaceuticals. Poorly tested drugs have severe consequences. Just because
you WANT a miracle, doesn't mean the first person offering one will actually
help.

~~~
Nitrolo
Fair enough, of course any vaccine that does get distributed to billions of
people should be tested very, very carefully. Chances are the first option
might not be the best one (see the vaccine that's being rolled out in Russia).

But the article is talking about the logistics of distributing an effective
vaccine, once it's found, not distributing the first best thing someone
happens to come up with. It seems pretty likely that at some point a safe and
effective vaccine will be found. Should that vaccine not be distributed
widely?

~~~
NoOneNew
Didn't reply to the article. I replied to a comment talking about why the
comments are against a vaccine in the first place.

------
japgolly
Gradually?

------
lez
It should be opt-in AND unvaccinated ppl should never face consequences in the
future.

~~~
alias-dev
You mean consequences outside of drowning in their own fluids?

~~~
chrisco255
Look at the death rates for people under 45...it's like 1 in 10,000. In some
cities and for certain age brackets, you're more likely to be murdered or
commit suicide than to die from Covid. The car accident fatality rate is
roughly 1 in 10,000.

~~~
noir_lord
It's not just the death rate.

It's long term physical damage even if you survive.

~~~
NoOneNew
Yea, sorry, but I have to call anecdotal bs on these claims. Every person in
the news I've seen that claims long term problems are obese individuals
looking to make excuses. Other "damages" are so random and all over the place,
it smells like correlation rather than causation. You know when someone might
say they have head lice and your head gets all itchy suddenly, then you think
you might have lice too. Theres a whole lot of that going on when it comes to
relating other health problems to Covid. Dont forget, it's super sexy right
now to be a covid survivor. People get a whole lot of attention for it.

For a forum that loves to call out anecdotal bias all the time, when it comes
to Covid, everyone here jumps on the fear bandwagon of the news and on really
poorly done studies with only a few dozen participants or epidemiologies.

~~~
moistly
> Every person in the news I've seen that claims long term problems are obese
> individuals looking to make excuses.

You should watch a more diverse media, then, because there are more than a few
fabulously fit people who are no longer able to compete, or even continue,
their sport.

~~~
NoOneNew
Anecdotal and it sounds more like they have tiny heart syndrome flaring up.
Part B, again, it's sexy to "Oh my goodness, my life is so difficult now since
I survived covid. Look at me, I'm a covid survivor, my life is so altered."
It's all cherry picked cases that the media are throwing out there. Cherry
picked anecdotes, something in any other HN topic would get you lambasted.

~~~
greenbush
Here are some first-person stories of runners who survived covid with lasting
effects:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Garmin/comments/i9n1pa/first_run_po...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Garmin/comments/i9n1pa/first_run_postcovid_compared_to_last_run_precovid/)

------
goto11
Wouldn't it be sufficient to vaccinate people in the high-risk groups?

~~~
parasight
I think you should add people working in the health-care sector.

~~~
dividedbyzero
And all the other people with lots of in-person contact with others, like in
retail, restaurants, taxis, etc.

And a lot of those who cram into public transportation during rush hour.

Otherwise you'll still overwhelm hospitals quickly in another runaway wave of
infections.

------
thelastname
We don't have the vaccine and don't know if will ever have.

------
cafebabbe
Why would we need to vaccine absolutely everyone ? isn't herd immunity a
thing?

~~~
kwhitefoot
Not yet, and it is possible that immunity does not last long enough for herd
immunity to ever happen. It's too early to tell.

~~~
nickthemagicman
This is false immunity is strong and long-lasting otherwise they wouldn't be
sinking billions into a vaccine which operates the same way that infectious
immunity operates.

------
nickthemagicman
We only need to vaccinate high risk people. Under 50 crowd does not need a
vaccination.

~~~
scambier
I'd rather not get sick and risk dying, even if I'm under 50. Thank you very
much.

And more importantly, even if the risk of death is low for me, I can still
transmit it to high risk people.

~~~
nickthemagicman
I'm not saying you shouldn't have the option... but there's plenty of us that
understand how risk works.

~~~
scambier
And there's plenty of us that understand that "low risk" is still risk, that
getting sick without dying is not without long-term health effects, and that
vaccination is not only for you, but for your community.

~~~
somjeed
And there's also plenty of us that recognize what some are certain is best for
the community, may not be. E.g. politicized forced vaccination

