Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
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 ----------
Correct.
|
It’s a conundrum who to have more belief in - two epidemiological experts, with Ph.Ds from Johns Hopkins, whose primary research interests are in infectious disease, risk behaviors, and translational epidemiology, & infectious disease modeling, health economics, operational and implementation science, and classical epidemiology, or OLD BOY, whose primary research interest in pushing herd immunity with no supporting evidence whatsoever...
btw, witchcraft and wizardry have not been disproved, but due the lack of evidence (much like your position about herd immunity), very few people would put faith in them when treating infectious diseases...
