The reason that this vaccine is idiotic? When you were kids you were vaccinated so you did not become ill

[occupied]

Through this whole ordeal watching the right try to comprehend epidemiology has been like watching a Homo Erectus encountering a black monolith. I'm sure the ones who managed to graduate had high school biology. How the hell do you totally forget all that?

I am an extreme leftist, progressive, liberal who understand epidemiology perfectly, and I can tell you that flattening the curve so we could wait for an untested and unnecessary vaccine is murder.

Herd immunity is historically what ended all established epidemics in all of history, such as the 1948 polio epidemic. The Salk vaccine was not available until 1957, after the epidemic was over.
Vaccines prevent future epidemics, not end ones in progress, because they take too long.

Tell me any epidemic in progress that was ended by anything other than herd immunity.
Even SARS, MERS, Hong Kong flu, Asian flu, Avian flu, Ebola, etc., were all ended through herd immunity.

Herd immunity without a vaccine has always meant an appaling number of deaths and a broken health care system. Most of the viruses you mentioned were not actually ended but they are still being held in check through isolation and by virtue of not being particularly contagious.

Herd immunity almost never meant an appalling number of deaths.
That is because herd immunity is similar to total quarantine in working fast.
It relies on local burn out to end the epidemic very quickly.

No virus endemic to humans is ended, and will always keep returning once there are new generations who are not immune. So vaccine are a great idea for them. But covid-19 is not endemic to humans, but to bats, so it is not coming back. So a vaccine for covid-19 is totally and completely useless. And gaining immunity adds risks, as it stresses your immune system more and more.

The highest possible death toll comes from delaying the end of the epidemic through flattening the curve. The longer the epidemic is allowed to stay viable, the wider it spreads and the more will die. A short quick spike of herd immunity results in the fewest deaths.

You are wrong about nearly everything you said.

The definition of herd immunity is whenever an epidemic dies out without 100% of the population needing to first become immune, that is herd immunity. So then since you can't vaccinate 100% of the population, all vaccines depend upon herd immunity in order to work.

If you deny herd immunity, then you know nothing at all about epidemiology.
And clearly waiting a year for a vaccine kills 5 times as many people as a quick early spike would in ending it right away.

The estimates of 4 million dead in order to achieve herd immunity with covid-19 are obviously based on mistakes. For example, with wider testing we now know the number of infected is over 5 times what we thought, meaning the death rate for those infected is 5 times lower than we thought.
Then we thought no one had inherent immunity, so 70% would have to be infected and recover in order to become immune. That turned out to be false, and over half the population already starts off inherently immume. Even children seem to all have a very high level of resistance. So only a tiny portion of the population has to gain immunity through infection, in order to achieve herd immunity.
And finally, the death toll of those who do volunteer for variolation, (deliberate infection), would be tiny as long as they are all under 40 or so, and not vulnerable. That reduces death rate by a factor of 40.

herd immunity requires at least 70% functional immunity. If you are using any other definition you are not in agreement with the experts. I listen to them not random yahoos on the internet.

 

[occupied]

No vaccine ever was or could be safe.
The question instead is whether or not it is safer then the infection?

And in the case of covid-19, it is not endemic to humans, so is not coming back, and therefore the vaccine is far more risky and pointless then the disease, which could easily and quickly have been eradicated by a herd immunity spike in March.

Covid is not going away. At some point every infectious disease known to man came from somewhere else in nature and found a new home in humans.

 

[Rigby5]

Through this whole ordeal watching the right try to comprehend epidemiology has been like watching a Homo Erectus encountering a black monolith. I'm sure the ones who managed to graduate had high school biology. How the hell do you totally forget all that?

I am an extreme leftist, progressive, liberal who understand epidemiology perfectly, and I can tell you that flattening the curve so we could wait for an untested and unnecessary vaccine is murder.

Herd immunity is historically what ended all established epidemics in all of history, such as the 1948 polio epidemic. The Salk vaccine was not available until 1957, after the epidemic was over.
Vaccines prevent future epidemics, not end ones in progress, because they take too long.

Tell me any epidemic in progress that was ended by anything other than herd immunity.
Even SARS, MERS, Hong Kong flu, Asian flu, Avian flu, Ebola, etc., were all ended through herd immunity.

Herd immunity without a vaccine has always meant an appaling number of deaths and a broken health care system. Most of the viruses you mentioned were not actually ended but they are still being held in check through isolation and by virtue of not being particularly contagious.

Herd immunity almost never meant an appalling number of deaths.
That is because herd immunity is similar to total quarantine in working fast.
It relies on local burn out to end the epidemic very quickly.

No virus endemic to humans is ended, and will always keep returning once there are new generations who are not immune. So vaccine are a great idea for them. But covid-19 is not endemic to humans, but to bats, so it is not coming back. So a vaccine for covid-19 is totally and completely useless. And gaining immunity adds risks, as it stresses your immune system more and more.

The highest possible death toll comes from delaying the end of the epidemic through flattening the curve. The longer the epidemic is allowed to stay viable, the wider it spreads and the more will die. A short quick spike of herd immunity results in the fewest deaths.

You are wrong about nearly everything you said.

The definition of herd immunity is whenever an epidemic dies out without 100% of the population needing to first become immune, that is herd immunity. So then since you can't vaccinate 100% of the population, all vaccines depend upon herd immunity in order to work.

If you deny herd immunity, then you know nothing at all about epidemiology.
And clearly waiting a year for a vaccine kills 5 times as many people as a quick early spike would in ending it right away.

The estimates of 4 million dead in order to achieve herd immunity with covid-19 are obviously based on mistakes. For example, with wider testing we now know the number of infected is over 5 times what we thought, meaning the death rate for those infected is 5 times lower than we thought.
Then we thought no one had inherent immunity, so 70% would have to be infected and recover in order to become immune. That turned out to be false, and over half the population already starts off inherently immume. Even children seem to all have a very high level of resistance. So only a tiny portion of the population has to gain immunity through infection, in order to achieve herd immunity.
And finally, the death toll of those who do volunteer for variolation, (deliberate infection), would be tiny as long as they are all under 40 or so, and not vulnerable. That reduces death rate by a factor of 40.

herd immunity requires at least 70% functional immunity. If you are using any other definition you are not in agreement with the experts. I listen to them not random yahoos on the internet.

It is easy to prove you are wrong, and herd immunity is not just a number.
You say 70%, but that is based on the R0 infection rate of covid-19, so that is not the right number for any other disease. For example, since measles has an R0 of 9, you need over 90% to be immune.
Now imagine you can quarantine people, what % for herd immunity do you need then?
Clearly then if you had total quarantine, you don't need any % to be immune in order to make the virus die out.
Then lets assume you have 99% of the population immune, but you keep bringing in a new infected tourist every 12 days, and have him shake hands with someone who is not immune? Clearly if you keep doing that, then you will need 100% to be immune before the virus is wiped out.
Herd immunity is really a probability thing, with lots of dependencies, and is just what is most likely to happen, given nothing unusual happens.
I understand herd immunity completely. Someone who says it is just a number, do not.

 

[occupied]

Through this whole ordeal watching the right try to comprehend epidemiology has been like watching a Homo Erectus encountering a black monolith. I'm sure the ones who managed to graduate had high school biology. How the hell do you totally forget all that?

I am an extreme leftist, progressive, liberal who understand epidemiology perfectly, and I can tell you that flattening the curve so we could wait for an untested and unnecessary vaccine is murder.

Herd immunity is historically what ended all established epidemics in all of history, such as the 1948 polio epidemic. The Salk vaccine was not available until 1957, after the epidemic was over.
Vaccines prevent future epidemics, not end ones in progress, because they take too long.

Tell me any epidemic in progress that was ended by anything other than herd immunity.
Even SARS, MERS, Hong Kong flu, Asian flu, Avian flu, Ebola, etc., were all ended through herd immunity.

Herd immunity without a vaccine has always meant an appaling number of deaths and a broken health care system. Most of the viruses you mentioned were not actually ended but they are still being held in check through isolation and by virtue of not being particularly contagious.

Herd immunity almost never meant an appalling number of deaths.
That is because herd immunity is similar to total quarantine in working fast.
It relies on local burn out to end the epidemic very quickly.

No virus endemic to humans is ended, and will always keep returning once there are new generations who are not immune. So vaccine are a great idea for them. But covid-19 is not endemic to humans, but to bats, so it is not coming back. So a vaccine for covid-19 is totally and completely useless. And gaining immunity adds risks, as it stresses your immune system more and more.

The highest possible death toll comes from delaying the end of the epidemic through flattening the curve. The longer the epidemic is allowed to stay viable, the wider it spreads and the more will die. A short quick spike of herd immunity results in the fewest deaths.

You are wrong about nearly everything you said.

The definition of herd immunity is whenever an epidemic dies out without 100% of the population needing to first become immune, that is herd immunity. So then since you can't vaccinate 100% of the population, all vaccines depend upon herd immunity in order to work.

If you deny herd immunity, then you know nothing at all about epidemiology.
And clearly waiting a year for a vaccine kills 5 times as many people as a quick early spike would in ending it right away.

The estimates of 4 million dead in order to achieve herd immunity with covid-19 are obviously based on mistakes. For example, with wider testing we now know the number of infected is over 5 times what we thought, meaning the death rate for those infected is 5 times lower than we thought.
Then we thought no one had inherent immunity, so 70% would have to be infected and recover in order to become immune. That turned out to be false, and over half the population already starts off inherently immume. Even children seem to all have a very high level of resistance. So only a tiny portion of the population has to gain immunity through infection, in order to achieve herd immunity.
And finally, the death toll of those who do volunteer for variolation, (deliberate infection), would be tiny as long as they are all under 40 or so, and not vulnerable. That reduces death rate by a factor of 40.

herd immunity requires at least 70% functional immunity. If you are using any other definition you are not in agreement with the experts. I listen to them not random yahoos on the internet.

It is easy to prove you are wrong, and herd immunity is not just a number.
You say 70%, but that is based on the R0 infection rate of covid-19, so that is not the right number for any other disease. For example, since measles has an R0 of 9, you need over 90% to be immune.
Now imagine you can quarantine people, what % for herd immunity do you need then?
Clearly then if you had total quarantine, you don't need any % to be immune in order to make the virus die out.
Then lets assume you have 99% of the population immune, but you keep bringing in a new infected tourist every 12 days, and have him shake hands with someone who is not immune? Clearly if you keep doing that, then you will need 100% to be immune before the virus is wiped out.
Herd immunity is really a probability thing, with lots of dependencies, and is just what is most likely to happen, given nothing unusual happens.
I understand herd immunity completely. Someone who says it is just a number, do not.

You seem to think Americans are willing to take the precautions necessary to make this thing die out naturally. Clearly this is not the case. Can't even get a significant portion to put on a mask or stay away from Grandma.

 

[Rigby5]

No vaccine ever was or could be safe.
The question instead is whether or not it is safer then the infection?

And in the case of covid-19, it is not endemic to humans, so is not coming back, and therefore the vaccine is far more risky and pointless then the disease, which could easily and quickly have been eradicated by a herd immunity spike in March.

Covid is not going away. At some point every infectious disease known to man came from somewhere else in nature and found a new home in humans.

Wrong.
Did Avian flu, SARS, or MERS come back?
No they did not.
That is because herd immunity killed them off in humans.
And without cross contamination, they can't come back.
They might some time in the future.
But we are much more likely to cross contaminate from camels, ducks, or pigs, than we are from bats.

 

[Rigby5]

Through this whole ordeal watching the right try to comprehend epidemiology has been like watching a Homo Erectus encountering a black monolith. I'm sure the ones who managed to graduate had high school biology. How the hell do you totally forget all that?

I am an extreme leftist, progressive, liberal who understand epidemiology perfectly, and I can tell you that flattening the curve so we could wait for an untested and unnecessary vaccine is murder.

Herd immunity is historically what ended all established epidemics in all of history, such as the 1948 polio epidemic. The Salk vaccine was not available until 1957, after the epidemic was over.
Vaccines prevent future epidemics, not end ones in progress, because they take too long.

Tell me any epidemic in progress that was ended by anything other than herd immunity.
Even SARS, MERS, Hong Kong flu, Asian flu, Avian flu, Ebola, etc., were all ended through herd immunity.

Herd immunity without a vaccine has always meant an appaling number of deaths and a broken health care system. Most of the viruses you mentioned were not actually ended but they are still being held in check through isolation and by virtue of not being particularly contagious.

Herd immunity almost never meant an appalling number of deaths.
That is because herd immunity is similar to total quarantine in working fast.
It relies on local burn out to end the epidemic very quickly.

No virus endemic to humans is ended, and will always keep returning once there are new generations who are not immune. So vaccine are a great idea for them. But covid-19 is not endemic to humans, but to bats, so it is not coming back. So a vaccine for covid-19 is totally and completely useless. And gaining immunity adds risks, as it stresses your immune system more and more.

The highest possible death toll comes from delaying the end of the epidemic through flattening the curve. The longer the epidemic is allowed to stay viable, the wider it spreads and the more will die. A short quick spike of herd immunity results in the fewest deaths.

You are wrong about nearly everything you said.

The definition of herd immunity is whenever an epidemic dies out without 100% of the population needing to first become immune, that is herd immunity. So then since you can't vaccinate 100% of the population, all vaccines depend upon herd immunity in order to work.

If you deny herd immunity, then you know nothing at all about epidemiology.
And clearly waiting a year for a vaccine kills 5 times as many people as a quick early spike would in ending it right away.

The estimates of 4 million dead in order to achieve herd immunity with covid-19 are obviously based on mistakes. For example, with wider testing we now know the number of infected is over 5 times what we thought, meaning the death rate for those infected is 5 times lower than we thought.
Then we thought no one had inherent immunity, so 70% would have to be infected and recover in order to become immune. That turned out to be false, and over half the population already starts off inherently immume. Even children seem to all have a very high level of resistance. So only a tiny portion of the population has to gain immunity through infection, in order to achieve herd immunity.
And finally, the death toll of those who do volunteer for variolation, (deliberate infection), would be tiny as long as they are all under 40 or so, and not vulnerable. That reduces death rate by a factor of 40.

herd immunity requires at least 70% functional immunity. If you are using any other definition you are not in agreement with the experts. I listen to them not random yahoos on the internet.

It is easy to prove you are wrong, and herd immunity is not just a number.
You say 70%, but that is based on the R0 infection rate of covid-19, so that is not the right number for any other disease. For example, since measles has an R0 of 9, you need over 90% to be immune.
Now imagine you can quarantine people, what % for herd immunity do you need then?
Clearly then if you had total quarantine, you don't need any % to be immune in order to make the virus die out.
Then lets assume you have 99% of the population immune, but you keep bringing in a new infected tourist every 12 days, and have him shake hands with someone who is not immune? Clearly if you keep doing that, then you will need 100% to be immune before the virus is wiped out.
Herd immunity is really a probability thing, with lots of dependencies, and is just what is most likely to happen, given nothing unusual happens.
I understand herd immunity completely. Someone who says it is just a number, do not.

You seem to think Americans are willing to take the precautions necessary to make this thing die out naturally. Clearly this is not the case. Can't even get a significant portion to put on a mask or stay away from Grandma.

You have this backwards.
While total quarantine is one way to end an epidemic, that is only good at the very beginning, when you can do contact tracing.
When you have millions already infected, then what you want to do in order to achieve herd immunity is to speed up infection, so that the greedy virus uses up all the easy hosts, and it dies out because then it can't find a new hosts as it nears its 12 day limit in a single host.
So you do not want people to wear masks, except the vulnerable, like the elderly.
What you want to do is speed up infects as much as possible, by variolation, (deliberate infection), of the young and healthy, who are not vulnerable.
All epidemics in all of history have ended by herd immunity, where the natural spike burns out the available local hosts, and that ends it.
To make herd immunity happen, all we have to do is stop flattening the curve.
Flattening the curve prevents herd immunity.
It conserves local hosts, slowly introducing them, so that there is always someone who the virus can transfer to.
Herd immunity relies on using up all the local hosts as quickly as possible.
Then it can't spread any longer.

 

[occupied]

No vaccine ever was or could be safe.
The question instead is whether or not it is safer then the infection?

And in the case of covid-19, it is not endemic to humans, so is not coming back, and therefore the vaccine is far more risky and pointless then the disease, which could easily and quickly have been eradicated by a herd immunity spike in March.

Covid is not going away. At some point every infectious disease known to man came from somewhere else in nature and found a new home in humans.

Wrong.
Did Avian flu, SARS, or MERS come back?
No they did not.
That is because herd immunity killed them off in humans.
And without cross contamination, they can't come back.
They might some time in the future.
But we are much more likely to cross contaminate from camels, ducks, or pigs, than we are from bats.

It is far easier to control diseases like the ones you mentioned because they are not nearly as contagious as covid 19. Not sure why you keep comparing them. They require close personal contact with body fluids or blood.

 

[justinacolmena]

a football player who gets many women pregnant having babies or abortions while being single with no financial help for them who takes a knee for social justice

That's an extremely healthy and extremely wealthy man leaving poor men on the hook for child support and alimony, and without any access to health care on their own.

 

[justinacolmena]

They require close personal contact with body fluids or blood.

Who are “they?”

Dudes at the whorehouse paying for *****? Leaving money on the table for sex-on-demand?

 

[Rigby5]

No vaccine ever was or could be safe.
The question instead is whether or not it is safer then the infection?

And in the case of covid-19, it is not endemic to humans, so is not coming back, and therefore the vaccine is far more risky and pointless then the disease, which could easily and quickly have been eradicated by a herd immunity spike in March.

Covid is not going away. At some point every infectious disease known to man came from somewhere else in nature and found a new home in humans.

Wrong.
Did Avian flu, SARS, or MERS come back?
No they did not.
That is because herd immunity killed them off in humans.
And without cross contamination, they can't come back.
They might some time in the future.
But we are much more likely to cross contaminate from camels, ducks, or pigs, than we are from bats.

It is far easier to control diseases like the ones you mentioned because they are not nearly as contagious as covid 19. Not sure why you keep comparing them. They require close personal contact with body fluids or blood.

I don't know where you got the idea that covid-19 was very contagious, but it's not at all.
Its infectiousness is R0=2.0 about, which is about as non-contagious as one can get.
Measles is much more contagious, with an R0=9.0. All the diseases I mentioned, like flus, are very similar to covid-19 in infectiousness. They do not require close personal contact, and are passed airborn, from coughs or sneezes.
{...
Traditionally, the CDC says influenza viruses have been spread primarily through large respiratory droplets, emitted when a person sneezes or coughs. (Technically, these droplets are still airborne since they spread through the air, but they don't fit the particulate definition of airborne). And because the flu virus can't necessarily hang in the air for hours, doctors don't necessarily consider it as airborne.
That said, the CDC still points out that "Airborne transmission via small particle aerosols in the vicinity of the infectious individual may also occur," according to their website, "however, the relative contribution of the different modes of influenza transmission is unclear."
A 2018 study from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) also discovered infectious influenza virus particles in "fine-aerosol samples" from exhaled breath and spontaneous coughs. Though more research needs to be done, researchers say that the virus be found in "aerosol particles small enough to remain suspended in air and present a risk for airborne transmission."
...}

This Is the Most Common Way the Flu Spreads

The flu spreads from person to person when an infected person coughs or sneezes near you. Learn whether the flu is airborne and how to prevent it.

www.health.com