Most countries have already had SARS-2 work its way through them significantly. The utility of a vaccine might be lower than you think.

NZ comes to mind as a country that has barely built up any immunity (due to them trying to contain it completely). They can expect more utility from a vaccine than otherwise.

Anyway, given the incredibly low rate of both mortality and also any real consequences in, say, those under age 55, their personal benefit of a vaccine is incredibly low. So it really comes down to whether you’re a Sweden person or a New Zealand person.

I’m a Sweden person personally.

> Most countries have already had SARS-2 work its way through them significantly.

Noope, that isn’t what antibody testing shows. Take England for example. Coronavirus working its way through a mere, say, 6% of the population is devastating.

> The utility of a vaccine might be lower than you think.

Nonsense. We need to protect the other 94%.

The problem with aggregate numbers like that 6% is that they assume a uniform distribution of the virus within the population, which is not the case: some areas are far more hit than others. I think this should always be kept into account.

Yeah, in major population centres like London, about 20% of people caught it. Whereas rural England will be lower than that 6% average.

That’s the areas. As for age or demographics of people who caught it in England, I don’t think that is well known.

You're referring to antibody testing? Is any T-cell testing being done?

>The utility of a vaccine might be lower than you think.

Especially given that most Americans won't take it [0].

[0] https://www.axios.com/covid-vaccine-election-f267a641-a19f-4...

Isn't there already a protocol for early stopping if the effect sizes (positive or negative) are bit enough?