compare South Dakota to California... I would say... there is a chance herd immunity has worked... in S.D. Remember many scientists stated that he math for vaccine immunity requires far more immunity that natural herd immunity. south Dakota is potentially a perfect example of the fact that they took the correct approach. California made massive interventions... we were the great lock down state... until the governor realized he was failing and recently canceled part of his lock down orders. “We did have tragedies and we did have losses, but we also got through it better than virtually every other state,” she said (the governor) https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/south-dakota/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/california/
Since "herd immunity" requires 70% or more of a population to have permanent antibody immunity --- and the highest level you can get to naturally is 50% in a population even with a highly contagious disease like measles. There is no way fundamentally to achieve "natural herd immunity" with a disease --- and trying to do so just leads to wide-scale death and misery. The only way to achieve herd immunity for a disease is via vaccination. This should be obvious -- even to the most dimwitted.
How many times do I have to explain to your propagandist self that while some scientists equate Vaccine immunity (which may require 70 percent and natural herd immunity others state natural herd immunity may come in at much lower levels. . There have been studies which show that natural herd immunity may come in at much lower levels because viruses do not spread randomly. They spread by picking off the lowest hanging fruit in each round... (as a model an in general.) So each round of spread gets tougher for the virus to kill people. The easy ones have either died or protect themselves or get antibodies.
There are no reasonable studies that show "natural herd immunity may come in at much lower level". This is complete nonsense and is not supported by science.
bullshit... I have provided the studies. I have provided articles from the new york times... discussing those studies... Finally... if you understand how viruses spread its common sense that immunity would come in at different levels...vaccines would be closer to the random spread number. natural herd immunity would come in at the virus spread rate number for each wave minus the antibodies it encountered and give that some of the most frail have already died. Even you understand that the spread rate goes down over time.
You provided nonsense from "natural herd immunity" advocates who pushed political policy over public health. These non-scientific advocates have definitively been proven wrong now and their nonsense is buried in the dustbin of history.
Of course the herd needs to have its members living within 20 miles of each other if we're going to call it a herd.
Define "non scientific" and then we can bet 10,000 dollars on whether the studies I have provided come from non scientific advocates... or scientists doing the math related to spread rates. ... you lying piece of shit.