Short comment on article in Washington Post quoting a number of public health folk who say, basically, “Stay vigilant, don’t drop your guard, just because you’re vaccinated. Why?, well, (a) there’s a ‘5/100′ chance you might be infected [but neglecting to say that “infection’ is not the same thing as ‘sick’ or even “spreading’] and (b) we just don’t know whether vaccination prevents transmission.”
My response: Whatever happened to “R-naught”, the number determining whether the virus would expand its range or dwindle to oblivion? Shouldn’t that number be front and center in determining whether vaccinations can allow progressive loosening of personal restrictions? After 40 years as a physician, I recognize the CYA attitude that most scientists adopt when knowledge is scarce and still arriving. Reminds me of business-speak, where “It’s not in the budget” doesn’t mean “no”, but rather, “Let’s find a way to make this work.” People hear this hedging of bets from experts, and think “No”, when they should be thinking, “How is can we change reasonable behavior based on current data?”