> The history of vaccines shows a phenomenal success rate.
Absolutely. I'm vaccinated against a lot of the terrible diseases. Grateful for it. But the history of vaccines is also littered with missteps and unethical behavior as well.
> The problem is your definition of "moderate" is flawed. You have included craziness as part of the spectrum which isn't correct.
Nope. My definition of moderate is moderate. Being open to the facts and weighing the data and the ability to question orthodoxy - especially when orthodoxy has been wrong so many times.
> And most physicians are in support due to the enormous impact vaccination has on hospitalization rates.
Sure. Especially for the most vulnerable population - the elderly, people with immune system issues, etc.
> We aren't past herd immunity. At all. 70% is a low ball number for herd immunity, many suggested a large rate is needed given the fast spreading of the virus. California is sitting at 58.8%.
You are conflating "vaccinated" with herd immunity. Isn't vaccinated + those who had covid ( the original and natural vaccine ) over 90%? I may be wrong. Is 70% a "low ball"? I remember the original herd immunity was 60-70% and 70% was the high end. Then what's the herd immunity number?
> I mean the US has had 43 million cases and 693,000 deaths. It has so far killed 1.5% of the confirmed cases.
Now add in the "nonconfirmed cases" and how low does that 1.5% go.
I was for lockdown. I think the states that locked down should stay locked down for the duration of the pandemic so that we have useful data to compare against the non-lockdown states/countries. I'm for people getting vaccinated - especially the at-risk people. But why are you being so intentionally misleading? You try to mislead with only "confirmed cases". You try to mislead by conflating vaccination rate to herd immunity. If you have truth, science and data on your side why be so sneaky with the data and labels?
If you truly wanted the pandemic to be over, shouldn't you be celebrating the vaccine rate + people who got covid? Is your goal the end of the pandemic or that everyone get a shot? Because they aren't the same thing.
> I remember the original herd immunity was 60-70% and 70% was the high end. Then what's the herd immunity number?
The target is 100%-100%/R0.
The original COVID had an R0 of 3-ish, so 60-70% was plenty; delta has an R0 more like 8-9, so the new target is more like 90%.
Typical high-end infection rates were estimated at 25-35% of the population in most of the US after the second wave. 60% vaccination rates plus 35% infection rates gives you about 75% with some form of immunity, which was enough to shut down the original COVID, but not enough to shut down the Delta variant.
Absolutely. I'm vaccinated against a lot of the terrible diseases. Grateful for it. But the history of vaccines is also littered with missteps and unethical behavior as well.
> The problem is your definition of "moderate" is flawed. You have included craziness as part of the spectrum which isn't correct.
Nope. My definition of moderate is moderate. Being open to the facts and weighing the data and the ability to question orthodoxy - especially when orthodoxy has been wrong so many times.
> And most physicians are in support due to the enormous impact vaccination has on hospitalization rates.
Sure. Especially for the most vulnerable population - the elderly, people with immune system issues, etc.
> We aren't past herd immunity. At all. 70% is a low ball number for herd immunity, many suggested a large rate is needed given the fast spreading of the virus. California is sitting at 58.8%.
You are conflating "vaccinated" with herd immunity. Isn't vaccinated + those who had covid ( the original and natural vaccine ) over 90%? I may be wrong. Is 70% a "low ball"? I remember the original herd immunity was 60-70% and 70% was the high end. Then what's the herd immunity number?
> I mean the US has had 43 million cases and 693,000 deaths. It has so far killed 1.5% of the confirmed cases.
Now add in the "nonconfirmed cases" and how low does that 1.5% go.
I was for lockdown. I think the states that locked down should stay locked down for the duration of the pandemic so that we have useful data to compare against the non-lockdown states/countries. I'm for people getting vaccinated - especially the at-risk people. But why are you being so intentionally misleading? You try to mislead with only "confirmed cases". You try to mislead by conflating vaccination rate to herd immunity. If you have truth, science and data on your side why be so sneaky with the data and labels?
If you truly wanted the pandemic to be over, shouldn't you be celebrating the vaccine rate + people who got covid? Is your goal the end of the pandemic or that everyone get a shot? Because they aren't the same thing.