I know you're being flippant but I'll go ahead and post cringe by "explaining" the meme. Some of these "vaccines" are 60% effective. Yeah, that's right, 40% of the people "innoculated" don't develop immunity. You need something like 90% immunity to reach "herd immunity" and about 60% of the population doesn't seem affected by this virus anyway. That has a lot of implications but tl;dr: you can take the "vaccine" all day and you won't have herd immunity.
rant: some of these things are vaccines, others qualify more as gene therapy, you can't really talk about all of them in one context. they're all different, have different efficacies, different side-effects. A lot of people have to take the yearly flu vaccine too and a little known fact, that's equally shit at being a vaccine. You can look up some of the arguments for/against the "yearly flu vaccine" to read more and it will mostly apply here. Even well designed vaccines sometimes never go above 90% and that can be increased or decreased simply by using different adjuvants. I don't know if the meme maker knew all this and made a really meta meme or has no idea and we're dealing with an ignoramus but either way, the meme works. It's funny, it can lead to people asking the right questions to learn about how vacciens work, and you won't get your ass kicked too hard in a colloquial debate if you invoke this meme.
argument falls apart when "herd immunity" is actually achieved at 5-10% which happened already, before the vaccines were introduced.
which also demonstrates the problem when using definitions controlled by other people. "Herd Immunity" should be extrapolated to mean, the amount of people that are immune before the population is trivially affected. From there, you can argue the coefficient of variation numbers, the susceptibility by age group, and what constitutes "trivial." But notice, under this new definition, everyone under 40 is already "innoculated" by their definition.
In today's world with a hailstorm of data, having the ability to dissect information, is of utmost importance.
Merely pointing out that you don't know what "Herd immunity" means. That is because the definition is a moving target which you can't control or nail down. It is a fiction of somebody's imagination that has taken a life of its' own and will continue to morph depending on the needs. You, therefore, can't stake a claim on what percentages must be "effectively innoculated" in order to reach this imaginary state called "herd immunity." This is further compounded by the fact that you do not know what "Effective" means and you do not know what "innoculated" means. In short, you can't define the materials so, now that I've challenged you on the definition; you will probably "google" the answers and will cite the source of the CDC or some study that uses their own language to describe the words. You will be surprised that they stake claims based on theory and conjecture, so even appealing to "authority," does no good here, since the authorities, we can observe, are in even worse shape. In short, if you were consistent with your beliefs, the colloquial debate is with yourself.
I am dumber for having read those two comments, thanks. 😳 I'll reply to you later tonight when I have time for a rant since several people upvoted you.
I know you're being flippant but I'll go ahead and post cringe by "explaining" the meme. Some of these "vaccines" are 60% effective. Yeah, that's right, 40% of the people "innoculated" don't develop immunity. You need something like 90% immunity to reach "herd immunity" and about 60% of the population doesn't seem affected by this virus anyway. That has a lot of implications but tl;dr: you can take the "vaccine" all day and you won't have herd immunity.
rant: some of these things are vaccines, others qualify more as gene therapy, you can't really talk about all of them in one context. they're all different, have different efficacies, different side-effects. A lot of people have to take the yearly flu vaccine too and a little known fact, that's equally shit at being a vaccine. You can look up some of the arguments for/against the "yearly flu vaccine" to read more and it will mostly apply here. Even well designed vaccines sometimes never go above 90% and that can be increased or decreased simply by using different adjuvants. I don't know if the meme maker knew all this and made a really meta meme or has no idea and we're dealing with an ignoramus but either way, the meme works. It's funny, it can lead to people asking the right questions to learn about how vacciens work, and you won't get your ass kicked too hard in a colloquial debate if you invoke this meme.
argument falls apart when "herd immunity" is actually achieved at 5-10% which happened already, before the vaccines were introduced.
which also demonstrates the problem when using definitions controlled by other people. "Herd Immunity" should be extrapolated to mean, the amount of people that are immune before the population is trivially affected. From there, you can argue the coefficient of variation numbers, the susceptibility by age group, and what constitutes "trivial." But notice, under this new definition, everyone under 40 is already "innoculated" by their definition.
In today's world with a hailstorm of data, having the ability to dissect information, is of utmost importance.
Are you trolling?
Merely pointing out that you don't know what "Herd immunity" means. That is because the definition is a moving target which you can't control or nail down. It is a fiction of somebody's imagination that has taken a life of its' own and will continue to morph depending on the needs. You, therefore, can't stake a claim on what percentages must be "effectively innoculated" in order to reach this imaginary state called "herd immunity." This is further compounded by the fact that you do not know what "Effective" means and you do not know what "innoculated" means. In short, you can't define the materials so, now that I've challenged you on the definition; you will probably "google" the answers and will cite the source of the CDC or some study that uses their own language to describe the words. You will be surprised that they stake claims based on theory and conjecture, so even appealing to "authority," does no good here, since the authorities, we can observe, are in even worse shape. In short, if you were consistent with your beliefs, the colloquial debate is with yourself.
I am dumber for having read those two comments, thanks. 😳 I'll reply to you later tonight when I have time for a rant since several people upvoted you.