It doesn't need to be 100% effective in humans, it just needs to slow transmission enough such that the rate of incidence declines in the direction of eradication.
replyIt will have the opposite effect, if people who get the vaccine start behaving as though they are 100% protected (which, many people will).
replyThis is called moral hazard, and people love to worry about it. Usually though (the relevant example here is PrEP, or birth control) it's fine and enables people to live their lives with fewer risks to their, and others, wellbeing
replyNo, I'm not talking about moral hazard at all. I'm just talking about the poor effectiveness. If it were highly effective, like PreP and birth control are, there would be no issue in my mind.
reply> It will
replyIt might. You don't know that.
The epistemic modality of my statement was implied. I obviously don't know the future.
reply> I obviously don't know the future
replyNor the past. Seatbelt requirements did result in riskier driving. It also, on the net, saved lives. Same for every other vaccine, or e.g. birth control in respect of teenage and unwanted pregnancies.
Also, PreP exists and works.
> Seatbelt requirements did result in riskier driving. It also, on the net, saved lives.
replyOkay? This seems unrelated. A better analogy would be if they had invented airbags and then people stopped wearing seatbelts. (like taking a 44% effective vaccine and then stop using PreP)
> Same for every other vaccine, or e.g. birth control in respect of teenage and unwanted pregnancies.
Also unrelated. Birth control is highly effective, and in fact is statistically more effective than condoms (since condoms can slip and/or break). My issue is the poor effectiveness of this vaccine.
[flagged]
reply