-
I think they were always primarily supposed to stop people dying. The effects on transmission were a secondary advantage but obviously they don't reduce transmission enough to completely prevent a wave of cases. (Although note that people's behaviour is undoubtedly going to change before/after vaccination...)
I understand your argument that people will be reluctant to take a booster if the effects on transmission are not very large but ultimately I don't know if that matters. I can't really imagine that we're all going to have biannual boosters - my impression is that at some point it'll just be old and vulnerable people getting vaccinated. (When we Learn To Live With It™)
frankenbike-
No you are completely wrong!
https://twitter.com/MichaelPSenger/status/1476249496736522246?s=20
For all those who think it would have been a complete disaster without the vaccines please explain what happened with the first wave when there were no vaccines available?
-
Yeah i think you are probably correct in some sense but in order to get opinon and ppl onboard they sold it to the public in a different manor. Hard to get invinceble 20 n 30 year olds on board with vaccination if the risk of getting serious side effects or death from covid is as low as it is for these groups but i also think they thought and hoped that the transmission reduction would be much greater (and it also was before this new variant) or the need to get these groups onboard would have been more or less pointless from a wider perspective as they are no load on the healthcare / hospitals.
8b
badboybjorn
Dont know about uk but here the major selling point was always stop the spread from getting to your old n frail get vaccinated rather than get a shot and protect yrself.