Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
It’s still a nail in the coffin for herd immunity either way. It means protecting the vulnerable is impossible unless you propose to lock them up forever.
What happens when you catch it a second, third, fourth time are unknown. Plus giving it billions of opportunities to mutate every year is a significant dice roll.
|
Not in my opinion. Herd immunity has not been disproved. Worldwide, only a handful of people have succumbed a second time, and the reasons for that are unclear.
Protecting the vulnerable as I meant it does not require locking them up forever, but protecting them until the healthy population has had the virus run through them. This would get us more or less to where we need to be for us all to get back to normal.
Do that, and you minimise the risk of the virus reinfecting people as our defences wear down again, if indeed they do. These lockdowns are increasing these risks by keeping the virus alive for longer. Lockdowns are also increasing the risks of mutation.
---------- Post added at 16:34 ---------- Previous post was at 16:33 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
Nomanking is right though that you don't necessarily need antibodies present to mount a immune response.
|
Correct.