On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 23:55:54 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 12:58:18 -0400, John wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 14:46:04 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 12:44:30 -0400,
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 15:00:25 -0000 (UTC), Justan wrote:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/hea...-be-looking-to

===

It seems logical to me that the term "herd immunity" is a bit of a
misnomer. If 70% of the populace has anti-bodies, that leaves 30% who
are still capable of getting infected if exposed. So what kind of
immunity is that? Better to get vaccinated in my opinion assuming
that the vaccine is safe and effective. I think the experts use herd
immunity to imply that the risk of rapid spreading is statistically
reduced.

The theory is that if 70% can't transmit this disease it will
eventually die out and the herd immunity rate for less infectious
diseases is even lower than that.
As nasty as this thing is, 70% might not get it tho. It is still
conjecture about whether there really is immunity to this and how long
it lasts.
I have very little confidence in anything I am hearing from the
"experts" because they can't keep the story straight from day to day.
I think there is a blind monkey throwing darts at a board for the
story of the day.

Whenever a dart hits, a little more is learned. They don't call this a novel
virus for no reason.

Yes but we are learning about a lot of things that may not work. That
is OK if it is voluntary but when it is the point of a government gun,
the evidence should be clear. You shouldn't be making law based on
"might" and "maybe".

*YOU* are the one with all the 'mights' and 'maybes'. You've been presented with
several studies showing the worth of masks.

You choose to disregard them, seeking any bull**** you can find to show their
lack of effectiveness.

--

Freedom Isn't Free!