Effectiveness against current variants doesn't guarantee effectiveness against future variants. "Just" reducing symptoms keeps people out of hospitals and graves.
> Secondly, no vaccine in history has come with a disclaimer that it doesn't work unless 100% of the population is vaccinated.
Straw man.
> Vaccines give individual protection.
And herd immunity when enough people get them.
> Thirdly, governments were saying very clearly that estimates of herd immunity were in the 60-70% range - very far from everyone. Why are people now claiming that this was wrong?
I very clearly heard up to 90% of the population. And we wouldn't know until people got vaccinated. Governments then set lower targets like 70% of adults. Probably they decided they couldn't persuade 90% of the population. Those weren't herd immunity estimates though.
Some estimates have gone up because the delta variant is more transmissible. Moreover most countries are under 60% vaccinated.
Every link I see on page 1 of results quotes 60-70% as the original herd immunity figure, which is what I recall hearing consistently back before the facts got upgraded.
No one made that argument. Even implicitly. Google wouldn't have an exception process if they thought even 1 person unvaccinated is dangerous. And basically it's the same policy many schools have for other vaccinations.
> Your herd immunity numbers are just made up. I saw many estimates last year and none were even close to 90%.
Last July the US GAO said 70 to 90% for most viruses. Their chart implied up to about 86% for COVID-19.[1]
Fauci in December: "We really don’t know what the real number is. I think the real range is somewhere between 70 to 90 percent."[2]
WHO in December: "The proportion of the population that must be vaccinated against COVID-19 to begin inducing herd immunity is not known." But about 95% and 80% for 2 other viruses.[3]
[1] https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-646sp
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covi...
[3] https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/herd-immunity-lockd...
We may need to reintroduce some lockdown rules and the Delta variant is still going to kill some vaccinated people (in much lower numbers, but unnecessary).
What?
https://www.journalofinfection.com/article/S0163-4453(21)003...
>Twenty-seven studies analysed the relation between lockdown and the reproduction number, case growth rates and cases, and 18 out them (67%) found an association with their reduction. Five studies found lockdowns to be the most effective control measure found it to be the only measure reducing the reproduction number below one. In contrast, five studies found it to be the least effective measure studied
Right, really sounds like it's proven beyond doubt
If the only way you can possibly prove lockdowns work is some kind of meta study using fancy statistics and math in order to show any difference, it probably means even if it did work it wasn't worth the cost to society. If lockdowns were effective and worth the social cost I assert any fool off the street should be able to easily see the impact of restrictions. Thus far, that is impossible.
> This has no more validity than an HN post linking to a bunch of blogs. They were probably forced to rely on such papers to try and get their desired result.
How is this different to you linking to a news article with about the same level of analysis as a blog post, that specifically says no conclusions can be drawn from the reported observations. One that you have also clearly selected to support your own desired result.
https://www.houstonpress.com/news/at-texas-childrens-some-ki...
Also, they are generally innocent and, IMHO, worthy of life.