The paper considers all of the factors you list in detail
?? Sorry not trying to be a douche about this, but can you provide quotes please? I simply do not see what you're talking about, let alone "in detail." The four things I mentioned before:
a) All of the math I see is from the point of view of the very first person infected in a given location. Just not seeing any mention of susceptible population lowering as a result of some neighbors already being sick during an outbreak.
b) Natural immunity: The only place this is mentioned is one sentence where they are saying that they DON'T account for it.
c) I see mediocre discussion of active government interventions. They mention passive database surveillance, and they mention actively trying to get new students coming to school to be vaccinated. They do not mention various other dynamic measures like quarantines, drug stockpiles, or extra manpower to active outbreak areas, etc. that push the effective R below the theoretical R0
d) I see no mention of how often people stay home or go to work or other self measures and education-dependent variables as being even considered here, let alone how or in detail.
It also states explicitly that any pc value below 90% is impossible.
Yes,
...with a single dose, whereas we give two,
...if delayed until your 2nd birthday, which we don't do,
...using the highest of of the R0s predicted for England (which is way higher than the ONLY value listed for North America, 18 vs. 12.5),
...still ignoring all four of the parameters I listed earlier in terms of spreading variables, until I see quotes attesting otherwise (with the one exception of briefly mentioned new student vaccination)
...and even after all that, this conclusion still was only meant to refer to the one highest risk subsection of a heteregeneous population, not the entire population.
if there were a significantly lower vaccination level that could prevent endemics in a population as large as 300,000,000 they would say so.
Or... they don't know or don't have sufficient data... You don't just say random shit you suspect
might be true in a peer reviewed journal article!! Not mentioning something therefore means
nothing other than not having hard evidence of it.
As it is I suspect the difference between pc and "the level at which epidemics usually die out stochastically in a very large population" is so tiny that it's barely even worth making the distinction, and since this thorough and well-researched article seems to make a similar assumption the onus is on you to demonstrate otherwise.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize we were dealing with something as serious as your suspicion of what somebody else's suspicion might be about some unpublished numbers. I take it all back.
Also your policy proposal is absolutely absurd, it would result in a wild see-sawing of vaccination levels every month that would leave young people vulnerable. Do you really think that deliberately staying in the danger zone half the time is a good idea? At least a raffle system would be enforceable (although it would make your patient choice argument pretty hilarious).
1) am not a professional congressman. Me failing to foresee and account for every possible snag in a congressional bill that I designed in 15 minutes as a rough example does not == "the idea would never work!"
2) I'm not sure I understand your prediction anyway. "wild see-sawing" ? Why? People have a personal incentive to remain near the optimal point for their own health outcomes, not just because the government said so. They shouldn't
want to see saw, so why would they? A tiny bit of seesawing simply due to logistics, that should be all.
3) Regardless, you could just add things like "Also, if we are within 0.5% of the target, it's just grace period for everyone" to avoid trivial see sawing around the exact value, if you're really concerned about that.
4) I have no idea what you're talking about with raffles or danger zones. If the nation is almost right at the equilibrium point, then you shouldn't give a crap if you get vaccinated or not, because it's defined as the point at which the risks from the disease and from the vaccine are equal, so you should be completely
ambivalent either way.
5) Also, if it is a little bit high, then you're safer not getting vaccinated, and if it's a little bit low, then you're safer getting vaccinated, so the natural incentive already should push people to self correct whenever they aren't ambivalent / right on the dot.
^
Note that this is assuming the possible scenario where risk/benefit equilibrium is higher than the endemic rate (i.e. assuming vaccines are relatively very safe).
I'd need more information to know about the lupus case, but I think most of the time it would be a matter of the vaccine exposing the condition rather than causing it.
Yeah, you and every rheumatologist in the world. Doctors know almost zilch about lupus. It might be just like you say. It might also plausibly be from vaccines sometimes. It might be from a specific microbe that lives in bad cabbage for all we really know about that disease in any detail.