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.
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.
save your self some time and save it for somebody who cares
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/herd-immunity-may-only-need-a-10-per-cent-infection-rate