Good point. Thank you. There may be no herd immunity to catching the cold, I agree. But I guess I mean immunity as in a very small percentage of people will die from the cold. That's how I'm using the word in order to be compatible with @jem 's usage, with respect to covid.
I already showed you above that we probably achieved herd immunity in some areas. As some experts have said. (obviously others disagree) a I believe it can be achieved more humanely by protecting the high risk better. (however vaccines have changed all that. ) --- as to your other questions.. a. I agree 100 percent in the short run.. with respect to the high risk. b. For the low risk I am not sure vaccines do much more than the low risks own immune system can do. If there is any benefit to spiking antibodies for low risk it may only be useful for a few months because antibodies wane... then you will need the other parts of your immune system to kick in. We will need more data to know if the low risk receive anything more than temporary help... they may not really need. --- However if Covid does not go quiescent soon... and people keep getting sick and we have to keep staying ahead of variants with new boosters... unfortunately the odds increase that we will lose the race to some variants that either bypasses vaccines... or worse... triggers ADE. Now those outcomes are unquantifiable but obviously if we don't eliminate the virus... the odds of a dangerous variant go up over each round of new variant creation.
Sero surveys are not very reliable -- unless you are sampling a huge portion of the population. India: How reliable are herd immunity claims? Even though a majority of Indians seem to have antibodies against the coronavirus, vaccination and COVID precautions remain the way out of the pandemic, experts say. https://www.dw.com/en/india-covid-sero-surveys/a-58648454 Two-thirds of India's more than 1.3-billion-strong population have antibodies against the coronavirus, according to data released recently from a serological survey conducted by the country's top medical body, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR). The survey was conducted nationwide in June and July and involved 29,000 participants. It also for the first time included 8,691 children aged six to 17 years. Half of them were seropositive, meaning that they had been exposed to the virus. Among the adults participating in the study, 67.6% were seropositive, while more than 62% of adults were unvaccinated. As of the end of July, nearly 7% of eligible adult Indians had received two vaccine doses. The study also surveyed 7,252 healthcare workers and found 85% had antibodies, with one in 10 not vaccinated. Nevertheless, the survey showed, about 400 million of India's 1.4 billion people were lacking antibodies. Serological surveys provide data on the proportion of population exposed to the coronavirus, including asymptomatic individuals, through the presence of antibodies that typically start appearing about two weeks after of the onset of infection. While RT-PCR and rapid antigen tests look for the presence of the actual virus, the antibody test checks for antibodies in the blood. So-called seroprevalence indicates frequency of the presence of such antibodies among individuals. "From the first sero-survey in May and June 2020, when one in 140 adults had antibodies for the virus, two in three Indians now have antibodies either because of prior infection or vaccination,” renowned virologist Jacob John told DW. Limited reliability However, epidemiologists and scientists caution that such serological studies are not always reliable and credible. "The ICMR sero survey examines only 70 out of the 700-odd districts in India, across 21 states. Because less than 10% of India's districts are sampled, it is possible that we may miss large variations between districts," Gautam Menon, professor of physics and biology at Ashoka University, told DW. "It is here that we need more information from well-planned sero surveys across different regions of the country, so that we have a much more granular view of how the pandemic is proceeding," he added. The uneven spread of the COVID-19 infection complicates the task of sampling a population to determine how many have been infected. Experts say the timing, the choice of the antibody test and the sampling methodology can have huge effects on the results. Vineeta Bal, a scientist at the National Institute of Immunology, is among experts who believe that while surveys like this can be useful, they have their limitations. "It is difficult to say how representative the survey is of various parts of the country because the infection and incidence rates vary across states," Bal told DW. She said that for example, it was unclear if seropositivity was higher in the states that had higher infection rates. Scientists also argue that there is a need for more data from the district level as well as information about reinfections and the problem of viral immune evasion, in order to put place strategies to manage the impact of COVID-19 in the future. Still vulnerable to COVID-19 Moreover, experts say that antibody prevalence does not necessarily mean that the population is less susceptible to new infections. Recent studies have shown that despite the high seroprevalence in countries like the United Kingdom and Israel, those countries have seen a recent rise in infections. "Look what happened in Manaus, a Brazilian city of more than 2 million. It developed supposed 76% herd immunity by October last year, but the city was besieged by a second wave subsequently," Brahmar Mukherjee, a professor of global health at the University of Michigan, told DW. "This was also the case in pockets of Delhi and the Mumbai slum areas," she added. Mukherjee pointed out that serological studies should not lead to complacency also because the virus is changing and there are cases of reinfections, especially with the delta variant. "We can only be secure with vaccinations, and that is the way forward, along with COVID-appropriate protocols," she said. Seroprevalence data from around the country has deepened the understanding of the COVID crisis in India — but given that a huge swathe of the population is not vaccinated, this could still create conditions for new variants to emerge. India's total cases currently stand at 31.4 million, according to Health Ministry data, making it the second-most affected country after the United States. The South Asian nation has recorded more than 420,000 COVID-related deaths so far.
So what do you think we should do with respect to covid? Should we continue letting people make their own vaccination decisions? Should the government mandate vaccines? Should we stop all vaccinations? Something else?
so a page or two ago you made bullshit up about how the survey is conducted... and never supported you bullshit. now you just bring a "warning" pulled from you own asshole that surveys needs to be large. as if India's ministry of health needs your help.
Are you trying to say that a survey consisting of 20,000 or so people located in urban areas that were highly impacted by Covid are in any way representative of the 1 Billion people plus in India. Yes... and as noted in other articles -- nearly all the selected households were selected because they had contacted medical authorities about a Covid case in the household. This in itself is a problem. This was not a random sampling in most of the regions.
When you an show us that the low risk get long term benefits from vaccines and boosters every few months... with virtually no downside... you could then have the legislative right to think about mandating vaccines for the low risk. Right now I have not even seen enough data to say the low risk get anything but a temporary spike in antibodies. Something we have seen millions and millions don't need. For the high risk... its an IQ test. if you are fat or old or suffering from health issues or a lack of vitamin D and don't get the vaccine... there is something wrong with your brain (except if you have a medical or a legit religious reason)
show us the links to your beliefs... then we can consider what you are claiming. if its 67% in an area... plus others... there is obviously the potential for natural herd immunity in that area.... so it does not really matter to me if there are pockets of herd immunity or not.. The graphs may have gone because there were pockets of natural herd immunity in densely populated areas.... see... how that works.
I would think all thinking people would think its criminal to force boosters for life on healthy young kids... when almost zero healthy young kids are killed by the virus. We have no idea a. what those booster will do to immune sytems in the long run. We have no guarantee they will work. We have no guarantee they will not harm So how the fuck could a thinking person do that to kids? Seriously... do yo have kids? would you let them risk their immune sytems for life... for astatistically insignificant risk from covid? Especially when the vaccines are only temporary and do not wipe the virus out. There is virtually zero justification for it. but go ahead tell me why my healthy kids who eat well and exercise and get plenty of vitamin d should be forced into a temporary vaccine.