We need more information than that poll. Someone unwilling to take a brand new vaccine is not inherently the same as some loony anti-vaccer. It’s not obvious to me that it would be sensible to be first inline for one of these vaccines that have been developed so quickly.

Indeed. With a US presidential election in November, any vaccine delivered in October and touted by the current administration will be met with extreme skepticism, even by those who routinely take vaccines.

Remember hydrochloroquine?

In the case of hydrochloroquine, Trump was saying "this is bigly magical" and every expert around was urging caution. With a (proper, tested) vaccine expert opinion would be a lot more friendly. People do consider the source; most people would not take medical advice from a hotel magnate (even people generally friendly to Trump were mostly cautious of the chloroquine and disinfectant imbibing stuff), against advice of actual doctors.

That said, mass availability of anything by November is probably optimistic.

yeah that's really sad. Having a pandemic during an election year was a bad idea :)

There's a big difference between the hydroxychloroquine fiasco and a developed vaccine. Hydroxychloroquine was something that showed early promise and seized upon by one political side but when it didn't live up to the hype it was seized upon by the other political side.

A vaccine is developed over time and the results released for all to see at each stage in the development. It's much harder to over-hype a vaccine and I think politicians learned their lesson.

IMO, in the US at least, if you refuse the vaccine then insurance should require cost of Covid19 treatment to be 100% patient paid.

That’s like asking MSM patients who don’t wear condoms to bear the entire cost of HIV medication.

There's election year vaccine precedent: Gerald Ford in 1976 with an "upcoming" swine flu. It's one of the reasons that Jimmy Carter defeated Ford.

Sadly, the vaccine was rushed and botched. Some people ended up with Guillain-Barre.

>any vaccine delivered and touted by the current administration will be met with extreme skepticism

That would be the most unfortunate irrational, anti-science behaviour that people could have, especially given the criticism of the same administration as anti-scientific.

This administration literally touted drinking bleach to fix the Coronavirus. I'm not going to self-righteously criticize people that are a now more than a bit sceptical of medical claims coming from the Trump Administration.

I dislike your use of the word "literally" immediately preceding something that did not, in fact, literally happen.

It's 100% reasonable to doubt and verify anything coming out of the Trump administration, at this point. "extreme skepticism" is the correct response to have. No idea why you call that "anti-science" and "irrational".

(Honestly: Crossing fingers the vaccine won't come out of the US so this situation is avoided)

I might be wrong on this, but wouldn't that still be fine in order to achieve herd immunity?

I distinctly remember reading something that said 60% was the minimum threshold required to ensure that the virus spread as a greatly reduced rate.

It's all estimates, of course, but there's some good reading about what factors effect the herd immunity threshold here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity#Mechanics They estimate 50-83% vaccination threshold to achieve herd immunity for COVID-19. I believe the citation is this study, but I admit my ability to read scientific papers is lacking: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32433946/

Right now they are saying that 95% had a substantial immune response. But we do not know whether it is substantial enough and lasting enough. Imagine that it is both for less than 70% of vaccinated. 5/6*0.7<0.6 (and yes, 0.7 is to prove a point).

herd immunity isn't an all or nothing.

HTT targets for influenza is 40% while SARS requires 80%.

This is a very good and important point. In a good year, if we can convince 40% of the eligible population to get a flu shot, imagine the challenge to get the >= 60% coverage needed to confer herd immunity. Just having a good, safe vaccine available isn’t enough. We have to convince an unusually large number (compared to influenza) of people to get vaccinated, and I worry about how hard that will be.

Vaccines required by workplaces or schools have higher compliance with the recommendations than The flu vaccine. COVID-19 vaccine could well be legally required at all schools, and potentially even legally required at workplaces as a condition of opening (certainly healthcare and allied fields would likely require it the way they do TB vaccines; the larger the mandatory population, the less compliance you need in the voluntary population to reach any given overall target.)

DOesn't this mean that the only people at risk are the people who don't get vaccinated?

The rest of us will be fine, right?

Not really. A vaccine is never 100% effective.

I thought the Smallpox vaccine was, or basically was? That's how we were able to eradicate Smallpox by giving everyone the vaccine.

You only need to the vaccine to lower the spread to an unsustainable level, and the disease will fizzle out.

The challenge for smallpox was more to do it in every remote corner of the planet.

A countermeasure could be that stores & restaurants etc will only allow vaccinated people to enter.

How would you implement that without causing an increase in subjective/race/religious discrimination? US Americans even oppose to national identity cards.

I'm guessing the forcing function will be public schools. Students who have been vaccinated will be allowed back. Others will not (or will be required to wear masks). Schools might even require that entire families be vaccinated before the kids are allowed back.

I agree but consider Measles, much more infectious and hits children the hardest. As far as I know, there is no federal law requiring forcing a Measles vaccine on parents.

On the other hand, Covid19 is affecting the economy and we're not having any of that in the US after the shutdown devastation so maybe a law requiring a vaccine is in the cards.

edit: thinking about it for a second, i don't see a law requiring it working. The lunatics would go crazy, there would be states refusing to enforce the law. Maybe some sort of incentive would work better, like a federal tax credit for proof of vaccination or something.

There is absolutely no way the government is going to force this vaccine on people. Not in the land of the free. Not in the land of "face masks violate my rights" They could write all the laws they want - it'll be unenforceable without popular buy-in.