SARS-CoV-2 Lambda variant exhibits higher infectivity and immune resistance

The risk of the vaccine is an open question that's being answered over time (consider things like ADE that caused mRNA vaccines to be put on hold prior to the pandemic). On the other hand, COVID has a pretty well defined risk being that we've seen it for 2 years now, and it's from a familiar family of viruses. We also have to consider vaccine effectiveness; is it robust to variants? over what timeline is it effective? does it reduce transmission? etc. If it is less effective in any of these categories, the risk:reward grows larger, and not taking it begins to make more and more sense.

Lastly, you have to consider when comparing these numbers, that there's a non-null probability you won't ever catch COVID. I'm not at risk, and I believe I probably have natural immunity, so I see no reason to expose myself to additional risk; it wouldn't help anyone any.

Can you source this claim? In the original Pfizer, Moderna, etc studies, they never tested for transmissibility, only reduction of COVID-like symptoms.

>Any way you parse it, vaccination is preferable to infection.

And I disagree. I would rather have SARS-COV-2 injected into my arm personally. I'm not at risk, so taking on additional poorly defined risk such as the vaccine makes little sense from a self-preservation standpoint. From what I've seen there's not enough data to support vaccines reducing spread, but I'd like to see what you may have. And then we have the issue of variants that go right around the vaccine.

Here's a relevant quote from Fauci: "Even though you’re vaccinated, because you could get infected, not know it, and be completely without symptoms because the vaccine is preventing you from getting symptoms, but you can have virus in your nasal pharynx and then inadvertently and innocently, pass it on to someone else who’s not vaccinated. That’s the problem we’re facing."

I don't know where we're at now, but early on when the vaccines were being first deployed, it was unsure if they'd reduce transmission, even between vaccinated populations. And you see Fauci here certainly implying that's the case.

> ... On the other hand, COVID has a pretty well defined risk being that we've seen it for 2 years now, and it's from a familiar family of viruses.

So, to be clear, you're saying that 2 years of observational data on COVID is conclusive because COVID is very similar to other viruses (SARS, MERS) which we have on decades of observational data on.

And yet you're saying that almost a year of observational data on COVID vaccines, over 3 billion doses delivered, is inconclusive even though it's also based on decades of study of similar vaccines. Vaccines developed using the same platform - both mRNA and viral vector vaccines are decades old. And in some cases, the studied vaccines were developed for SARS - the same virus you credit towards understanding of COVID. Should credit not also go towards understanding of the vaccines?

Is this not inconsistent?

At this point the COVID vaccine has been studied, trialed and monitored more than probably anything else you've ever interacted with in your daily life. Most vaccine trials are run with one thousand people, not three billion.

> Lastly, you have to consider when comparing these numbers, that there's a non-null probability you won't ever catch COVID. I'm not at risk, and I believe I probably have natural immunity, so I see no reason to expose myself to additional risk; it wouldn't help anyone any.

There's a very high chance you will catch it unless you mask and vax. Even then there's a pretty high chance.

You have no reason to believe you have natural immunity - you almost certainly do not. This is at best wishful thinking.

You're exposing yourself to more risk through inaction. But worse, you're putting your friends and family who cannot get the vaccine for actual reasons instead of gut feeling at risk.

It's been obvious for more than a year that it's possible to eliminate the virus entirely and then reopen society with very few restrictions. This approach saves lives, gives people the ability to live their lives normally, and is better for the economy. China, Australia, New Zealand and a few other countries have demonstrated this.

Why we're still arguing about this is beyond me. The question isn't what the best strategy is - it's why most developed countries can't/don't/won't implement the most effective strategy.

This article does a nice job of going into the nuances

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-c...

Also, a better link than a wikipedia article: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/history/ind...