[quote KeepOnKeepingOnAgainandAgain]@Imaginetoday - forgive me for questioning you but what is the difference between this vaccine - with no data to support impact on transmission or data to support length of effectivity (on severity of illness) and other vaccines - say measles?
Do other vaccines mean that you still be infected and infectious but less likely to suffer severe illness? I thought vaccines meant you didn't become infected. Data exists with older vaccines - even if we are ignorant of it - but not so much with novel vaccines.
Is there even RCT that show that people who have been immunised with novel vaccines have less severe illness, shorter hospital stays, lower mortality compared to those who have not been immunised?
Is a theoretical reduction of transmission based solely on less severe illness so less viral load?
Why aren't other prophylactic treatments used where evidence exists?
Are people with greater transmission risks (working outside the home, younger, public facing etc) not being vaccinated because impact on transition is unknown?
I can understand frustration and confusion and the desire for absolutes. Trying to deal with scientific uncertainties and match this to political optimistic truths is a hard place to be. [/quote]
Re question around prophylactic treatment...not sure how you’re defining this?
There are massive hosptial trials ongoing all the way through the epidemic to look at treatments once people are ill. Lots of breakthroughs made including 2 drugs last week typically these have not been new medicines, just new applications of existing drugs that are approved for other illnesses. Some have been non drug treatments such as introducing CPAP. To develop a cure for covid would take years. Better to stop people getting it with vaccines. And vaccines are known to be safest form of medication.