Posted on May 18, 2021
It's Time For America's Fixation On Herd Immunity To End, Scientists Say
430
20
15
7
7
0
It looks like we might give up on the idea of herd immunity. Too many people are against vaccination. We are quickly entering the realm of anyone in the US who wants it, likely has it. We are not going to force people to get it as we believe in bodily autonomy (at least the people who are for a person’s right to chose are).
We may just have to loosen restrictions and those who don’t have the vaccine just need to take their chances. It’s not an optimal solution, ten years from now if we are still dealing with variants we will likely wonder if we couldn’t have eradicated it in the US. Also, some who can’t get the vaccine will be put in risk by those who chose not to, but I think this is where we are.
We may just have to loosen restrictions and those who don’t have the vaccine just need to take their chances. It’s not an optimal solution, ten years from now if we are still dealing with variants we will likely wonder if we couldn’t have eradicated it in the US. Also, some who can’t get the vaccine will be put in risk by those who chose not to, but I think this is where we are.
It's Time For America's Fixation On Herd Immunity To End, Scientists Say
Posted from npr.orgPosted in these groups: 
Coronavirus COVID19
Coronavirus COVID19
Posted 3 y ago
Responses: 2
4
4
0
If vaccination works we'll just end up seeing outbreaks in rural america. However in the start most rural areas had the least amount of cases. What will be an issue is tourism and travel.
(4)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
PFC (Join to see) Rural areas are trailing indicators. That is to say the less travel in and out of an area and the sparser the population, the longer it will take COVID to take hold. I suspect some of those areas with low vaccination density will eventually see outbreak. Not much to be done as we can’t (shouldn’t really) force people to get vaccinated.
I also suspect those who want to travel outside the US will have problems if not vaccinated.
I also suspect those who want to travel outside the US will have problems if not vaccinated.
(2)
(0)
LTC Eugene Chu
SPC Kevin Ford - Since you mention disparities between urban and rural areas of the U.S.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/18/covid-vaccine-cdc-study-finds-disparities-in-coverage-between-rural-and-urban-areas.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/18/covid-vaccine-cdc-study-finds-disparities-in-coverage-between-rural-and-urban-areas.html
CDC study finds disparities in Covid vaccine rates between rural and urban areas
A CDC study found a lower percentage of adults in rural counties who received at least one shot than in urban counties, at 38.9% and 45.7%, respectively.
(2)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
LTC Eugene Chu - There is a correlation there, I suspect, between political ideologies and those areas. That was always a large danger from the politicization of COVID.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Interesting article. Of course the facts they quote are inaccurate. There is no proofs reinfection is common, and in addition to people getting vaccinated they need to add the people who have recovered from the Wuhan Virus, because there is no reason fir these people to get vaccinated either, they already have the antibodies. They also never proved the case to get our children vaccinated by citing the number of “serious illnesses and death” the young will have instead of must recovering from mild symptoms. To protect the old us no reason to get a shot. Speaking for myself, I have my shots and do not care if the young get vaccinated. The vaccine may be more harmful to them.
(2)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
SPC Kevin Ford They are implying reinfection is common when they cite information that says so “and” offer no disclaimers. Do you honestly not understand that or are you just playing their lawyer? This is how media tries to sway public opinion; it stopped working about 20 years ago.
(0)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
SFC (Join to see) - I think this is the problem a lot of the people have with the media and it is reading comprehension (please don't take that personally, English as a language sucks). What I'm saying is that people in media tend to have a better understanding of the technical meaning of things than the public at large and use that in their writing. So in cases like this they say something and people translate it to mean something else.
Common is something that happens normally. Can be a 50/50 chance (but doesn't have to be). But it would be an expected and normal outcome.
More common is a phrase that means more likely. It doesn't make it common though.
If something is found out to happen one in a million times when before it was thought to happen one in a billion, it's more common than previously thought. That doesn't make it common, or even close to common.
The fact that reinfection is more likely than previously thought is important to the article. But that doesn't make it likely, common, usual, normal or any other similar words we could use.
Edit to add: Please don't read this to mean I think you have crummy reading comprehension. That's not what I'm trying to say. I read things into what people say all the time that are not what they really said, I think we all do. Many times it seems to be based on the type of thing I expect a person to say instead of what they actually said.
Common is something that happens normally. Can be a 50/50 chance (but doesn't have to be). But it would be an expected and normal outcome.
More common is a phrase that means more likely. It doesn't make it common though.
If something is found out to happen one in a million times when before it was thought to happen one in a billion, it's more common than previously thought. That doesn't make it common, or even close to common.
The fact that reinfection is more likely than previously thought is important to the article. But that doesn't make it likely, common, usual, normal or any other similar words we could use.
Edit to add: Please don't read this to mean I think you have crummy reading comprehension. That's not what I'm trying to say. I read things into what people say all the time that are not what they really said, I think we all do. Many times it seems to be based on the type of thing I expect a person to say instead of what they actually said.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
SPC Kevin Ford I mean no disrespect. From your non answer it does appear either you don’t understand the concept of trying to sway public opinion by loosely referring to questionable information that can easily be misinterpreted in writing, or you are just actively advocating for getting everyone 100% vaccinated. Either way it’s good to go.
(0)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
SFC (Join to see) - But that's just it, you don't know if they are trying to sway public opinion. You have to read something into it that isn't there in the text of what they wrote. You have to start with the assumption they are trying to do that. I.e. assume your conclusion.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google