Would a worldwide quarantine help? --moved to general discussion

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the potential effectiveness of a two-week worldwide lockdown in mitigating the spread of Covid-19. Participants explore the implications of such a measure, including its feasibility, public compliance, and the role of vaccinations in managing the pandemic.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that a two-week lockdown could significantly reduce Covid-19 infections, similar to the initial lockdowns in March.
  • Others argue that public compliance would be a major issue, making a worldwide lockdown impractical or ineffective.
  • Several participants highlight that symptomless spreaders are a key challenge in controlling the virus, complicating the effectiveness of short lockdowns.
  • There are differing views on the potential for future lockdowns, with some believing that people would adapt better to a second lockdown, while others express skepticism about public willingness to comply.
  • Concerns are raised about vaccine uptake, with some participants noting that anti-vaccine sentiments could hinder achieving herd immunity.
  • Some argue that the current approach to lockdowns is not sustainable and that alternative strategies should be considered, referencing successful models from other countries.
  • There is discussion about the ethical implications of allowing the virus to spread while waiting for vaccines, with some participants emphasizing the need for immediate action.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of opinions, with no clear consensus on the effectiveness or feasibility of a worldwide lockdown. Disagreements persist regarding public compliance, the role of vaccinations, and the ethical considerations of pandemic management.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the limitations of lockdowns, including the potential for continued spread within households and the psychological and social impacts of repeated lockdowns. There is also mention of varying public trust in vaccines and the challenges of achieving high vaccination rates.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to public health officials, policymakers, and individuals concerned about pandemic management strategies and the societal impacts of Covid-19 measures.

  • #31
When they say that a vaccine is "90% effective" what is that relative to? If you had a disease that only 50% of the population were vulnerable to, and everyone got the vaccine, would that make 90% of the people immune? Or 95% of the people immune?
 
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #32
Algr said:
When they say that a vaccine is "90% effective" what is that relative to? If you had a disease that only 50% of the population were vulnerable to, and everyone got the vaccine, would that make 90% of the people immune? Or 95% of the people immune?
It would appear that they don't overthink such things.

https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-r...ntech-conclude-phase-3-study-covid-19-vaccine
43000 participants​
170 total cases​
162 cases in the placebo group​
8 cases in the vaccine group​

(162 - 8) / 162 * 100% = 95.1%

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/new...s-clinical-trial-nih-moderna-covid-19-vaccine
>30000 participants​
95 total cases​
90 cases in the placebo group​
5 cases in the vaccine group​
(90 - 5) / 90 * 100% = 94.4%
https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dsepd/ss1978/lesson3/section6.html
Vaccine efficacy or vaccine effectiveness​
 
Last edited:
  • #33
Okay, thanks.

I was thinking of the notorious "lie detector" theoretical where a "90% accurate" lie detector ends up producing more false positives then actual positives. But I'm not sure if that applies here or not.
 
  • #34
Algr said:
Okay, thanks.

I was thinking of the notorious "lie detector" theoretical where a "90% accurate" lie detector ends up producing more false positives then actual positives. But I'm not sure if that applies here or not.
Ha! Please note that I've changed my post, as, while looking at the equation, although the answer came out fairly correct, it didn't strike me as making much sense.
dumb.luck.maths.2020-11-19 at 12.14.31 PM.png
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 516 ·
18
Replies
516
Views
38K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K