Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
ONLY herd immunity has ever ended any entrenched epidemic.
Lock downs can not, have not, and ever will end any epidemic.
By stretching the time of any epidemic, locks downs always result in larger numbers of deaths.
Here are the experts.
Listen to them.
Lockdowns can work, however they only have a real chance if the disease is so virulent that there are minimal asymptomatic or mild symptom cases.
You would have to add in a real serious mortality rate, i.e. 5%-10% to really force people to isolate, and the disease needs to be only contagious when a person is truly symptomatic.
In that scenario a lockdown and isolation of anyone in contact with known cases is the only way to stop a true decimation of the population.
Coronavirus Cases: 7,991,998
Deaths: 219,695
How many has the lockdown killed?
A good question. you would have to quantify somehow the increase in other deaths due to avoidance of doctors, and the increase in suicides due to the increased isolation.
On the other hand you would also have to "credit" the lockdowns with decreases in automobile related deaths, and of workplace deaths.
No, the increase in deaths due to the lock down comes from the fact the epidemic has been continued much longer than it would normally.
The way to figure an epidemic is by its monthly death toll, which is about 30,000 for covid-19.
So if you aggressively apply deliberate herd immunity in the first month, and it takes a month to wipe it out, then you have 60,000 deaths and it is gone.
If instead you flatten the curve for a years, that caused 360,000 deaths, with no end in sight.
So clearly lock downs kill potentially an infinite number of people, way more than an optimal herd immunity.
I would think you would have had many more deaths in the first month or two if you didn't isolate vulnerable populations, as in a limited directed lockdown.
We won't know for sure until it is all over, but we may look at Sweden as an example to check out.
A deliberate herd immunity strategy always tries to isolate the vulnerable.
That is the whole point.
With herd immunity you are shooting for a 6 week time frame, so then isolating the vulnerable is practical.
With lock downs, they last for years, if not indefinitely, so then isolating the vulnerable becomes impossible.
Sweden did not go for herd immunity.
They did not deliberately infect those under 38, and did not protect the elderly.
I don't think you would find any government that would consider "deliberately" infecting anyone, as this thing does have a small but real mortality rate for those under 65 with certain conditions, some of which people might not be aware of.
NO government would intentionally infect their citizens (except China). With the inclusion of therapeutics and early detection in those of age and underlying conditions they too now have exceed 98% survival rates.
At this point it is pointless to lockdown further. Protect the older and vulnerable populations and open this sucker up.
The damage occurring to the healthy persons now far exceeds the potential damage to our economy and able bodied people. The Cure has become worse than the disease.
Since those under 38 have essentially no risk from covid-19 infection, far more than necessary would likely volunteer. They want to end the lock down, and would be more than willing. I would gladly volunteer, even though I am way too old to do it without risk.
But I agree it is much easier to protect just the vulnerable than it is to try to lock down everyone.
At this point it would serve no purpose to intentionally infect anyone.. Open up the economy and monitor. This virus is fully capable of infecting the populace without help.
Coronavirus Cases: 7,991,998
Deaths: 219,695
How many has the lockdown killed?
And this is a point the left wants you to ignore... These massive protests have resulted in what level of increase? No one is reporting an increase from these riots. Why not? IF this virus was as deadly as they purport then we should be seeing massive increases in cities that have riots.Pretty much the same with their encouraging and supporting the subhuman pieces of shit who have been rioting and looting and causing all manner of violence, destruction, and theft. Again, they've been trying to tell us that Trump is somehow responsible for all of that; when all of us can clearly see who is really responsible for it.
ONLY herd immunity has ever ended any entrenched epidemic.
Lock downs can not, have not, and ever will end any epidemic.
By stretching the time of any epidemic, locks downs always result in larger numbers of deaths.
Here are the experts.
Listen to them.
Lockdowns can work, however they only have a real chance if the disease is so virulent that there are minimal asymptomatic or mild symptom cases.
You would have to add in a real serious mortality rate, i.e. 5%-10% to really force people to isolate, and the disease needs to be only contagious when a person is truly symptomatic.
In that scenario a lockdown and isolation of anyone in contact with known cases is the only way to stop a true decimation of the population.
Coronavirus Cases: 7,991,998
Deaths: 219,695
How many has the lockdown killed?
A good question. you would have to quantify somehow the increase in other deaths due to avoidance of doctors, and the increase in suicides due to the increased isolation.
On the other hand you would also have to "credit" the lockdowns with decreases in automobile related deaths, and of workplace deaths.
No, the increase in deaths due to the lock down comes from the fact the epidemic has been continued much longer than it would normally.
The way to figure an epidemic is by its monthly death toll, which is about 30,000 for covid-19.
So if you aggressively apply deliberate herd immunity in the first month, and it takes a month to wipe it out, then you have 60,000 deaths and it is gone.
If instead you flatten the curve for a years, that caused 360,000 deaths, with no end in sight.
So clearly lock downs kill potentially an infinite number of people, way more than an optimal herd immunity.
I would think you would have had many more deaths in the first month or two if you didn't isolate vulnerable populations, as in a limited directed lockdown.
We won't know for sure until it is all over, but we may look at Sweden as an example to check out.
A deliberate herd immunity strategy always tries to isolate the vulnerable.
That is the whole point.
With herd immunity you are shooting for a 6 week time frame, so then isolating the vulnerable is practical.
With lock downs, they last for years, if not indefinitely, so then isolating the vulnerable becomes impossible.
Sweden did not go for herd immunity.
They did not deliberately infect those under 38, and did not protect the elderly.
I don't think you would find any government that would consider "deliberately" infecting anyone, as this thing does have a small but real mortality rate for those under 65 with certain conditions, some of which people might not be aware of.
NO government would intentionally infect their citizens (except China). With the inclusion of therapeutics and early detection in those of age and underlying conditions they too now have exceed 98% survival rates.
At this point it is pointless to lockdown further. Protect the older and vulnerable populations and open this sucker up.
The damage occurring to the healthy persons now far exceeds the potential damage to our economy and able bodied people. The Cure has become worse than the disease.
Since those under 38 have essentially no risk from covid-19 infection, far more than necessary would likely volunteer. They want to end the lock down, and would be more than willing. I would gladly volunteer, even though I am way too old to do it without risk.
But I agree it is much easier to protect just the vulnerable than it is to try to lock down everyone.
At this point it would serve no purpose to intentionally infect anyone.. Open up the economy and monitor. This virus is fully capable of infecting the populace without help.
I disagree.
By deliberate infection we can select volunteers only for those under 38 who are not at risk, and then we also know exactly who and when to quarantine for 12 days.
If we allow this to be random, it would be much harder to protect the vulnerable and there would be some needless deaths,
Every case of Polio was a damned disaster. The death rate was unimportant in this case. And a natural vaccination ("Polio-Party") did fortunatelly never anyone do. This virus - like many others as for example the dangerous measels - never reached a natural herd immunity. The herd immmunity came with the artificial vaccination against Polio.
Every case of Polio was a damned disaster. The death rate was unimportant in this case. And a natural vaccination ("Polio-Party") did fortunatelly never anyone do. This virus - like many others as for example the dangerous measels - never reached a natural herd immunity. The herd immmunity came with the artificial vaccination against Polio.
ONLY herd immunity has ever ended any entrenched epidemic.
Lock downs can not, have not, and ever will end any epidemic.
By stretching the time of any epidemic, locks downs always result in larger numbers of deaths.
Here are the experts.
Listen to them.
Lockdowns can work, however they only have a real chance if the disease is so virulent that there are minimal asymptomatic or mild symptom cases.
You would have to add in a real serious mortality rate, i.e. 5%-10% to really force people to isolate, and the disease needs to be only contagious when a person is truly symptomatic.
In that scenario a lockdown and isolation of anyone in contact with known cases is the only way to stop a true decimation of the population.
Coronavirus Cases: 7,991,998
Deaths: 219,695
How many has the lockdown killed?
A good question. you would have to quantify somehow the increase in other deaths due to avoidance of doctors, and the increase in suicides due to the increased isolation.
On the other hand you would also have to "credit" the lockdowns with decreases in automobile related deaths, and of workplace deaths.
No, the increase in deaths due to the lock down comes from the fact the epidemic has been continued much longer than it would normally.
The way to figure an epidemic is by its monthly death toll, which is about 30,000 for covid-19.
So if you aggressively apply deliberate herd immunity in the first month, and it takes a month to wipe it out, then you have 60,000 deaths and it is gone.
If instead you flatten the curve for a years, that caused 360,000 deaths, with no end in sight.
So clearly lock downs kill potentially an infinite number of people, way more than an optimal herd immunity.
I would think you would have had many more deaths in the first month or two if you didn't isolate vulnerable populations, as in a limited directed lockdown.
We won't know for sure until it is all over, but we may look at Sweden as an example to check out.
A deliberate herd immunity strategy always tries to isolate the vulnerable.
That is the whole point.
With herd immunity you are shooting for a 6 week time frame, so then isolating the vulnerable is practical.
With lock downs, they last for years, if not indefinitely, so then isolating the vulnerable becomes impossible.
Sweden did not go for herd immunity.
They did not deliberately infect those under 38, and did not protect the elderly.
I don't think you would find any government that would consider "deliberately" infecting anyone, as this thing does have a small but real mortality rate for those under 65 with certain conditions, some of which people might not be aware of.
You don't know enough to even post about Polio much less opine about it's disappearance. Herd immunity was achieved by the vaccine, not people contracting it and developing immunity to it.
ONLY herd immunity has ever ended any entrenched epidemic.
Lock downs can not, have not, and ever will end any epidemic.
By stretching the time of any epidemic, locks downs always result in larger numbers of deaths.
Here are the experts.
Listen to them.
Lockdowns can work, however they only have a real chance if the disease is so virulent that there are minimal asymptomatic or mild symptom cases.
You would have to add in a real serious mortality rate, i.e. 5%-10% to really force people to isolate, and the disease needs to be only contagious when a person is truly symptomatic.
In that scenario a lockdown and isolation of anyone in contact with known cases is the only way to stop a true decimation of the population.
Coronavirus Cases: 7,991,998
Deaths: 219,695
How many has the lockdown killed?
A good question. you would have to quantify somehow the increase in other deaths due to avoidance of doctors, and the increase in suicides due to the increased isolation.
On the other hand you would also have to "credit" the lockdowns with decreases in automobile related deaths, and of workplace deaths.
No, the increase in deaths due to the lock down comes from the fact the epidemic has been continued much longer than it would normally.
The way to figure an epidemic is by its monthly death toll, which is about 30,000 for covid-19.
So if you aggressively apply deliberate herd immunity in the first month, and it takes a month to wipe it out, then you have 60,000 deaths and it is gone.
If instead you flatten the curve for a years, that caused 360,000 deaths, with no end in sight.
So clearly lock downs kill potentially an infinite number of people, way more than an optimal herd immunity.
I would think you would have had many more deaths in the first month or two if you didn't isolate vulnerable populations, as in a limited directed lockdown.
We won't know for sure until it is all over, but we may look at Sweden as an example to check out.
A deliberate herd immunity strategy always tries to isolate the vulnerable.
That is the whole point.
With herd immunity you are shooting for a 6 week time frame, so then isolating the vulnerable is practical.
With lock downs, they last for years, if not indefinitely, so then isolating the vulnerable becomes impossible.
Sweden did not go for herd immunity.
They did not deliberately infect those under 38, and did not protect the elderly.
I don't think you would find any government that would consider "deliberately" infecting anyone, as this thing does have a small but real mortality rate for those under 65 with certain conditions, some of which people might not be aware of.
NO government would intentionally infect their citizens (except China). With the inclusion of therapeutics and early detection in those of age and underlying conditions they too now have exceed 98% survival rates.
At this point it is pointless to lockdown further. Protect the older and vulnerable populations and open this sucker up.
The damage occurring to the healthy persons now far exceeds the potential damage to our economy and able bodied people. The Cure has become worse than the disease.
Since those under 38 have essentially no risk from covid-19 infection, far more than necessary would likely volunteer. They want to end the lock down, and would be more than willing. I would gladly volunteer, even though I am way too old to do it without risk.
But I agree it is much easier to protect just the vulnerable than it is to try to lock down everyone.
At this point it would serve no purpose to intentionally infect anyone.. Open up the economy and monitor. This virus is fully capable of infecting the populace without help.
I disagree.
By deliberate infection we can select volunteers only for those under 38 who are not at risk, and then we also know exactly who and when to quarantine for 12 days.
If we allow this to be random, it would be much harder to protect the vulnerable and there would be some needless deaths,
I see your point. However, is this virus really as deadly as they purport? Why do cities having major rioters not have massive influxes of cases? Some things just do not add up..
Did these so-called scientist comment on the Salk Vaccine for Polio....or was the herd mentality....
You don't know enough to even post about Polio much less opine about it's disappearance. Herd immunity was achieved by the vaccine, not people contracting it and developing immunity to it.
You're a dumb as fuck.
ONLY herd immunity has ever ended any entrenched epidemic.
Lock downs can not, have not, and ever will end any epidemic.
By stretching the time of any epidemic, locks downs always result in larger numbers of deaths.
Here are the experts.
Listen to them.
Lockdowns can work, however they only have a real chance if the disease is so virulent that there are minimal asymptomatic or mild symptom cases.
You would have to add in a real serious mortality rate, i.e. 5%-10% to really force people to isolate, and the disease needs to be only contagious when a person is truly symptomatic.
In that scenario a lockdown and isolation of anyone in contact with known cases is the only way to stop a true decimation of the population.
Coronavirus Cases: 7,991,998
Deaths: 219,695
How many has the lockdown killed?
A good question. you would have to quantify somehow the increase in other deaths due to avoidance of doctors, and the increase in suicides due to the increased isolation.
On the other hand you would also have to "credit" the lockdowns with decreases in automobile related deaths, and of workplace deaths.
No, the increase in deaths due to the lock down comes from the fact the epidemic has been continued much longer than it would normally.
The way to figure an epidemic is by its monthly death toll, which is about 30,000 for covid-19.
So if you aggressively apply deliberate herd immunity in the first month, and it takes a month to wipe it out, then you have 60,000 deaths and it is gone.
If instead you flatten the curve for a years, that caused 360,000 deaths, with no end in sight.
So clearly lock downs kill potentially an infinite number of people, way more than an optimal herd immunity.
I would think you would have had many more deaths in the first month or two if you didn't isolate vulnerable populations, as in a limited directed lockdown.
We won't know for sure until it is all over, but we may look at Sweden as an example to check out.
A deliberate herd immunity strategy always tries to isolate the vulnerable.
That is the whole point.
With herd immunity you are shooting for a 6 week time frame, so then isolating the vulnerable is practical.
With lock downs, they last for years, if not indefinitely, so then isolating the vulnerable becomes impossible.
Sweden did not go for herd immunity.
They did not deliberately infect those under 38, and did not protect the elderly.
I don't think you would find any government that would consider "deliberately" infecting anyone, as this thing does have a small but real mortality rate for those under 65 with certain conditions, some of which people might not be aware of.
NO government would intentionally infect their citizens (except China). With the inclusion of therapeutics and early detection in those of age and underlying conditions they too now have exceed 98% survival rates.
At this point it is pointless to lockdown further. Protect the older and vulnerable populations and open this sucker up.
The damage occurring to the healthy persons now far exceeds the potential damage to our economy and able bodied people. The Cure has become worse than the disease.
Since those under 38 have essentially no risk from covid-19 infection, far more than necessary would likely volunteer. They want to end the lock down, and would be more than willing. I would gladly volunteer, even though I am way too old to do it without risk.
But I agree it is much easier to protect just the vulnerable than it is to try to lock down everyone.
At this point it would serve no purpose to intentionally infect anyone.. Open up the economy and monitor. This virus is fully capable of infecting the populace without help.
I disagree.
By deliberate infection we can select volunteers only for those under 38 who are not at risk, and then we also know exactly who and when to quarantine for 12 days.
If we allow this to be random, it would be much harder to protect the vulnerable and there would be some needless deaths,
I see your point. However, is this virus really as deadly as they purport? Why do cities having major rioters not have massive influxes of cases? Some things just do not add up..
Did these so-called scientist comment on the Salk Vaccine for Polio....or was the herd mentality....
Did they solve it with lockdowns?
Every case of Polio was a damned disaster. The death rate was unimportant in this case. And a natural vaccination ("Polio-Party") did fortunatelly never anyone do. This virus - like many others as for example the dangerous measels - never reached a natural herd immunity. The herd immmunity came with the artificial vaccination against Polio.
Lockdowns worked in every other country in the world. Every other first world country in the world lock down and shut the virus down. Then we reopen slowly when the virus was completely quashed.
ONLY herd immunity has ever ended any entrenched epidemic.
Lock downs can not, have not, and ever will end any epidemic.
By stretching the time of any epidemic, locks downs always result in larger numbers of deaths.
Here are the experts.
Listen to them.
Lockdowns can work, however they only have a real chance if the disease is so virulent that there are minimal asymptomatic or mild symptom cases.
You would have to add in a real serious mortality rate, i.e. 5%-10% to really force people to isolate, and the disease needs to be only contagious when a person is truly symptomatic.
In that scenario a lockdown and isolation of anyone in contact with known cases is the only way to stop a true decimation of the population.
Coronavirus Cases: 7,991,998
Deaths: 219,695
How many has the lockdown killed?
A good question. you would have to quantify somehow the increase in other deaths due to avoidance of doctors, and the increase in suicides due to the increased isolation.
On the other hand you would also have to "credit" the lockdowns with decreases in automobile related deaths, and of workplace deaths.
No, the increase in deaths due to the lock down comes from the fact the epidemic has been continued much longer than it would normally.
The way to figure an epidemic is by its monthly death toll, which is about 30,000 for covid-19.
So if you aggressively apply deliberate herd immunity in the first month, and it takes a month to wipe it out, then you have 60,000 deaths and it is gone.
If instead you flatten the curve for a years, that caused 360,000 deaths, with no end in sight.
So clearly lock downs kill potentially an infinite number of people, way more than an optimal herd immunity.
I would think you would have had many more deaths in the first month or two if you didn't isolate vulnerable populations, as in a limited directed lockdown.
We won't know for sure until it is all over, but we may look at Sweden as an example to check out.
A deliberate herd immunity strategy always tries to isolate the vulnerable.
That is the whole point.
With herd immunity you are shooting for a 6 week time frame, so then isolating the vulnerable is practical.
With lock downs, they last for years, if not indefinitely, so then isolating the vulnerable becomes impossible.
Sweden did not go for herd immunity.
They did not deliberately infect those under 38, and did not protect the elderly.
I don't think you would find any government that would consider "deliberately" infecting anyone, as this thing does have a small but real mortality rate for those under 65 with certain conditions, some of which people might not be aware of.
Just the cost of testing and treating the 215 million people who need to get the crud in order to achieve "herd immunity", would bankrupt the nation. Sure only a small percentage are dying, but 20% of those infected are getting really sick. They're hospitalized for weeks for treatment, and even with insurance, can go home owing $1 million for their care because of caps. Furthermore, you only have about 1 million hospital beds total, in the entire country, and 70% of them are usually filled with heart patients, cancer patients, and people needing other forms of care.
The virus has been let run loose in the US now for the past 9 months, and only 10% of the population is believed to have been exposed. 220,000 have died. You need 70% exposure to achieve herd immunity. To achieve herd immunity without a vaccine, would take at least 4 years of unrelenting disease, sickness and death. 215 million people have to get sick. You're at 7 million now. Millions of deaths.
Insanity. Financial ruin, disease, and emotional trauma to the families, is no way to run a country.
ONLY herd immunity has ever ended any entrenched epidemic.
Lock downs can not, have not, and ever will end any epidemic.
By stretching the time of any epidemic, locks downs always result in larger numbers of deaths.
Here are the experts.
Listen to them.
Just the cost of testing and treating the 215 million people who need to get the crud in order to achieve "herd immunity", would bankrupt the nation.
Insanity. Financial ruin, disease, and emotional trauma to the families, is no way to run a country.
Which we should have known all a long, since with 200.000 deaths out of 330 million, that is only a 0,05% death rate average, including the vulnerable along with the healthy.
ONLY herd immunity has ever ended any entrenched epidemic.
Lock downs can not, have not, and ever will end any epidemic.
By stretching the time of any epidemic, locks downs always result in larger numbers of deaths.
Here are the experts.
Listen to them.
Lockdowns can work, however they only have a real chance if the disease is so virulent that there are minimal asymptomatic or mild symptom cases.
You would have to add in a real serious mortality rate, i.e. 5%-10% to really force people to isolate, and the disease needs to be only contagious when a person is truly symptomatic.
In that scenario a lockdown and isolation of anyone in contact with known cases is the only way to stop a true decimation of the population.
Coronavirus Cases: 7,991,998
Deaths: 219,695
How many has the lockdown killed?
A good question. you would have to quantify somehow the increase in other deaths due to avoidance of doctors, and the increase in suicides due to the increased isolation.
On the other hand you would also have to "credit" the lockdowns with decreases in automobile related deaths, and of workplace deaths.
No, the increase in deaths due to the lock down comes from the fact the epidemic has been continued much longer than it would normally.
The way to figure an epidemic is by its monthly death toll, which is about 30,000 for covid-19.
So if you aggressively apply deliberate herd immunity in the first month, and it takes a month to wipe it out, then you have 60,000 deaths and it is gone.
If instead you flatten the curve for a years, that caused 360,000 deaths, with no end in sight.
So clearly lock downs kill potentially an infinite number of people, way more than an optimal herd immunity.
I would think you would have had many more deaths in the first month or two if you didn't isolate vulnerable populations, as in a limited directed lockdown.
We won't know for sure until it is all over, but we may look at Sweden as an example to check out.
A deliberate herd immunity strategy always tries to isolate the vulnerable.
That is the whole point.
With herd immunity you are shooting for a 6 week time frame, so then isolating the vulnerable is practical.
With lock downs, they last for years, if not indefinitely, so then isolating the vulnerable becomes impossible.
Sweden did not go for herd immunity.
They did not deliberately infect those under 38, and did not protect the elderly.
I don't think you would find any government that would consider "deliberately" infecting anyone, as this thing does have a small but real mortality rate for those under 65 with certain conditions, some of which people might not be aware of.
NO government would intentionally infect their citizens (except China). With the inclusion of therapeutics and early detection in those of age and underlying conditions they too now have exceed 98% survival rates.
At this point it is pointless to lockdown further. Protect the older and vulnerable populations and open this sucker up.
The damage occurring to the healthy persons now far exceeds the potential damage to our economy and able bodied people. The Cure has become worse than the disease.
Since those under 38 have essentially no risk from covid-19 infection, far more than necessary would likely volunteer. They want to end the lock down, and would be more than willing. I would gladly volunteer, even though I am way too old to do it without risk.
But I agree it is much easier to protect just the vulnerable than it is to try to lock down everyone.
At this point it would serve no purpose to intentionally infect anyone.. Open up the economy and monitor. This virus is fully capable of infecting the populace without help.
I disagree.
By deliberate infection we can select volunteers only for those under 38 who are not at risk, and then we also know exactly who and when to quarantine for 12 days.
If we allow this to be random, it would be much harder to protect the vulnerable and there would be some needless deaths,
I see your point. However, is this virus really as deadly as they purport? Why do cities having major rioters not have massive influxes of cases? Some things just do not add up..
It's really simple.
1. The police are firing tear gas and other irritants at the protestors, and the protestor's are wearing gas masks, which protects them from exposure, even more than the N95 masks.
2. The protest marchers are MOVING and they're outdoors. They're not standing or sitting still, and sharing air in close quarters the same air The White House super spreader events are outdoors, but people are standing/sitting shoulder to shoulder with the same people for long periods of time without moving. They're also hugging, shaking hands. Any exposure more than 15 minutes increases your risk of getting the virus.
3. Even when marchers aren't wearing gas masks, most are wearing masks, social distancing, and not hugging or touching.
But I think the biggest factor is the tear gas.
Did these so-called scientist comment on the Salk Vaccine for Polio....or was the herd mentality....
Did they solve it with lockdowns?
I was locked down as a child. I couldn't go to the swimming pool or any other place I might get polio. My parents kept me at home, and safe. I was so grateful when I got the shot so I could have a life and play with other kids. On the other hand, I was terrified of ending up in an iron lung, or having to wear braces on my legs for the rest of my life.
If they were "ended by herd immunity," how did we end up with more and more epidemics of it? An 18 year old uncle of mine died of it in 1926. I personally have known three people crippled by it for life, all in later epidemics. I thought herd immunity was supposed to END it. It doesn't look to me as if herd immunity ended it, the vaccine did.
The Salk vaccine as approved in 1955, but was not widely available for several years.
Thanks for the wiki article, but what I was looking for is some credible evidence that the polio epidemic had already been decimated by herd immunity. The graph shows cycles, with high and low years. Without the introduction of the vaccine, what makes you think it wouldn't have spiked again?It took over 8 years to develop the Salk vaccine for polio, so clearly vaccines are not and never will be the means of ending an epidemic that already hit. What vaccines are good for, is preventing new ones in the future.
I'm not following the reasoning that it's a terrible idea to introduce a vaccine during an epidemic. You lost me.
Vaccines are a great way to implement herd immunity, but they take too long.
There were a number of separate polio epidemics, not just one, and all the previous had been ended by herd immunity, so we know what the profile of a polio epidemic looks like, and it was essentially over by the vaccine distribution in 1957.
ONLY herd immunity has ever ended any entrenched epidemic.
Lock downs can not, have not, and ever will end any epidemic.
By stretching the time of any epidemic, locks downs always result in larger numbers of deaths.
Here are the experts.
Listen to them.
Lockdowns can work, however they only have a real chance if the disease is so virulent that there are minimal asymptomatic or mild symptom cases.
You would have to add in a real serious mortality rate, i.e. 5%-10% to really force people to isolate, and the disease needs to be only contagious when a person is truly symptomatic.
In that scenario a lockdown and isolation of anyone in contact with known cases is the only way to stop a true decimation of the population.
Coronavirus Cases: 7,991,998
Deaths: 219,695
How many has the lockdown killed?
A good question. you would have to quantify somehow the increase in other deaths due to avoidance of doctors, and the increase in suicides due to the increased isolation.
On the other hand you would also have to "credit" the lockdowns with decreases in automobile related deaths, and of workplace deaths.
No, the increase in deaths due to the lock down comes from the fact the epidemic has been continued much longer than it would normally.
The way to figure an epidemic is by its monthly death toll, which is about 30,000 for covid-19.
So if you aggressively apply deliberate herd immunity in the first month, and it takes a month to wipe it out, then you have 60,000 deaths and it is gone.
If instead you flatten the curve for a years, that caused 360,000 deaths, with no end in sight.
So clearly lock downs kill potentially an infinite number of people, way more than an optimal herd immunity.
Wasn't 30,000 deaths WITH precautions? I don't think we know, do we, how many deaths there would have been without precautions? What would it look like if we did what you're suggesting? Just going back to normal with the medical providers being ready for many deaths?
