Covid-19: How Much Herd Immunity is Enough?
By: Donald G. McNeil Jr. (The New York Times)
When do we acknowledge that the public has been deliberately misled? The public has been spoon fed whatever science someone in an authoritarian position chooses to believe.
According to expert scientific advisors we don't know how the pandemic started and we don't know how the pandemic will end. The experts have only been telling the public what they want the public to believe. And public opinion polling has been the determining factor for authoritarian advice provided by scientific experts.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, along with most of the scientific community, has been engaged in the same type of politics as Donald Trump. Anytime the experts are challenged there has been a concerted effort to sow confusion and chaos. Expert scientific advisors accept no responsibility for anything.
Do masks work? Do mandates work? Will the vaccines end the pandemic? The scientific community has responded to those questions with the fuzzy science of moving goalposts. The reality is that the scientific community does not know and have been advising the public based upon whatever the experts wish to believe.
The public is being expected to believe the believers. And the public will be punished if they don't believe the believers. Scientists are opening the door to another Dark Age where the public will be judged by a holy inquisition of true believers.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
At what point does a country achieve herd immunity? What portion of the population must acquire resistance to the coronavirus, either through infection or vaccination, in order for the disease to fade away and life to return to normal?
Since the start of the pandemic, the figure that many epidemiologists have offered has been 60 to 70 percent. That range is still cited by the World Health Organization and is often repeated during discussions of the future course of the disease.
Although it is impossible to know with certainty what the limit will be until we reach it and transmission stops, having a good estimate is important: It gives Americans a sense of when we can hope to breathe freely again.
Recently, a figure to whom millions of Americans look for guidance — Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, an adviser to both the Trump administration and the incoming Biden administration — has begun incrementally raising his herd-immunity estimate.
In the pandemic's early days, Dr. Fauci tended to cite the same 60 to 70 percent estimate that most experts did. About a month ago, he began saying "70, 75 percent" in television interviews. And last week, in an interview with CNBC News, he said "75, 80, 85 percent" and "75 to 80-plus percent."
In a telephone interview the next day, Dr. Fauci acknowledged that he had slowly but deliberately been moving the goal posts. He is doing so, he said, partly based on new science, and partly on his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks.
Hard as it may be to hear, he said, he believes that it may take close to 90 percent immunity to bring the virus to a halt — almost as much as is needed to stop a measles outbreak.
Asked about Dr. Fauci's conclusions, prominent epidemiologists said that he might be proven right. The early range of 60 to 70 percent was almost undoubtedly too low, they said, and the virus is becoming more transmissible, so it will take greater herd immunity to stop it.
Dr. Fauci said that weeks ago, he had hesitated to publicly raise his estimate because many Americans seemed hesitant about vaccines, which they would need to accept almost universally in order for the country to achieve herd immunity.
Now that some polls are showing that many more Americans are ready, even eager, for vaccines, he said he felt he could deliver the tough message that the return to normal might take longer than anticipated.
"When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent," Dr. Fauci said. "Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, 'I can nudge this up a bit,' so I went to 80, 85."
"We need to have some humility here," he added. "We really don't know what the real number is. I think the real range is somewhere between 70 to 90 percent. But, I'm not going to say 90 percent."
Doing so might be discouraging to Americans, he said, because he is not sure there will be enough voluntary acceptance of vaccines to reach that goal. Although sentiments about vaccines in polls have bounced up and down this year, several current ones suggest that about 20 percent of Americans say they are unwilling to accept any vaccine.
Also, Dr. Fauci noted, a herd-immunity figure at 90 percent or above is in the range of the infectiousness of measles.
"I'd bet my house that Covid isn't as contagious as measles," he said.
Measles is thought to be the world's most contagious disease; it can linger in the air for hours or drift through vents to infect people in other rooms. In some studies of outbreaks in crowded military barracks and student dormitories, it has kept transmitting until more than 95 percent of all residents are infected.
Interviews with epidemiologists regarding the degree of herd immunity needed to defeat the coronavirus produced a range of estimates, some of which were in line with Dr. Fauci's. They also came with a warning: All answers are merely "guesstimates."
"You tell me what numbers to put in my equations, and I'll give you the answer," said Marc Lipsitch, an epidemiologist at Harvard's T.H. Chan School of Public Health. "But you can't tell me the numbers, because nobody knows them."
The only truly accurate measures of herd immunity are done in actual herds and come from studying animal viruses like rinderpest and foot-and-mouth disease, said Dr. David M. Morens, Dr. Fauci's senior adviser on epidemiology at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
When cattle are penned in corrals, it is easy to measure how fast a disease spreads from one animal to another, he said. Humans move around, so studying disease spread among them is far harder.
The original assumption that it would take 60 to 70 percent immunity to stop the disease was based on early data from China and Italy, health experts noted.
Epidemiologists watching how fast cases doubled in those outbreaks calculated that the virus's reproduction number, or R0 — how many new victims each carrier infected — was about 3. So two out of three potential victims would have to become immune before each carrier infected fewer than one. When each carrier infects fewer than one new victim, the outbreak slowly dies out.
Two out of three is 66.7 percent, which established the range of 60 to 70 percent for herd immunity.
Reinforcing that notion was a study conducted by the French military on the crew of the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, which had an outbreak in late March, said Dr. Christopher J.L. Murray, director of the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation.
The study found that 1,064 of the 1,568 sailors aboard, or about 68 percent, had tested positive for the virus.
But the carrier returned to port while the outbreak was still in progress, and the crew went into quarantine, so it was unclear whether the virus was finished infecting new sailors even after 68 percent had caught it.
Also, outbreaks aboard ships are poor models for those on land because infections move much faster in the close quarters of a vessel than in a free-roaming civilian population, said Dr. Natalie E. Dean, a biostatistician at the University of Florida.
More important, the early estimates from Wuhan and Italy were later revised upward, Dr. Lipsitch noted, once Chinese scientists realized they had undercounted the number of victims of the first wave. It took about two months to be certain that there were many asymptomatic people who had also spread the virus.
It also became clearer later that "superspreader events," in which one person infects dozens or even hundreds of others, played a large role in spreading Covid-19. Such events, in "normal" populations — in which no one wears masks and everyone attends events like parties, basketball tournaments or Broadway shows — can push the reproduction number upward to 4, 5 or even 6, experts said. Consequently, those scenarios call for higher herd immunity; for example, at an R0 of 5, more than four out of five people, or 80 percent, must be immune to slow down the virus.
Further complicating matters, there is a growing consensus among scientists that the virus itself is becoming more transmissible. A variant "Italian strain" with the mutation known as D614G has spread much faster than the original Wuhan variant. A newly identified mutation, sometimes called N501Y, that may make the virus even more infectious has recently appeared in Britain, South Africa and elsewhere.
The more transmissible a pathogen, the more people must become immune in order to stop it.
Dr. Morens and Dr. Lipsitch agreed with Dr. Fauci that the level of herd immunity needed to stop Covid-19 could be 85 percent or higher. "But that's a guesstimate," Dr. Lipsitch emphasized.
"Tony's reading the tea leaves," Dr. Morens said.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention offers no herd immunity estimate, saying on its website that "experts do not know."
Although W.H.O. scientists still sometimes cite the older 60 to 70 percent estimate, Dr. Katherine O'Brien, the agency's director of immunization, said that she now thought that range was too low. She declined to estimate what the correct higher one might be.
"We'd be leaning against very thin reeds if we tried to say what level of vaccine coverage would be needed to achieve it," she said. "We should say we just don't know. And it won't be a world or even national number. It will depend on what community you live in."
Dr. Dean noted that to stop transmission in a crowded city like New York, more people would have to achieve immunity than would be necessary in a less crowded place like Montana.
Even if Dr. Fauci is right and it will take 85 or even 90 percent herd immunity to completely stop coronavirus transmission, Dr. Lipsitch said, "we can still defang the virus sooner than that."
He added: "We don't have to have zero transmission in order to have a decent society. We have lots of diseases, like flu, transmitting all the time, and we don't shut down society for that. If we can vaccinate almost all the people who are most at risk of severe outcomes, then this would become a milder disease."
Tags
Who is online
38 visitors
When do we acknowledge that the public has been deliberately misled by the scientific community?
Exactly! Have you seen this?
New Study Shows Mask Mandates Had Zero Effect In Florida Or Nationwide, But The Lie Continues
If that's not absolute proof of exactly what you are saying.. I don't know what is!
The questions concerning the effectiveness of masks have been floating around for months. And there has been a concerted effort by the scientific community to confront those questions with confusion and chaos. There have been reports of all sorts of laboratory experiments and contrived tests. But apparently collecting real-world data is too scientifically challenging.
You'd think that with mounting number of infections it would be rather easy to obtain real-world data. Instead, the public is expected to accept contrived laboratory tests using gerbils and ignore what is happening in the real-world.
After all the hand waving, the pubic is still forced to believe the true believers. But there has been very little real-world scientific information to back up the opinions of the true believers. The scientific advisors have just been making it up as they go.
Are you suggesting or supporting the notion that masks are not effective?
A very good illustration of the mendacity of scientists.
Some have claimed masks are as effective as vaccines; obviously not true. Others have claimed masks do nothing; also obviously not true.
Hamster experiments (in Hong Kong) demonstrated that the filtration material used in masks is about 75 pct effective at reducing spread of the virus and protecting against infection. Unprotected hamsters experienced an infection rate of 66 pct while protected hamsters experienced an infection rate of 17 pct.
Obviously the effectiveness of a mask will be less than demonstrated by the experiment because a mask is not the same as a filtration barrier separating hamster cages.
Determining the effectiveness of masks shouldn't be that difficult. Medical staff have been trained how to properly use PPE and protect themselves. Hospitals should provide real-world information concerning the effectiveness of the CDC guidelines to reduce spread of the virus and provide protection. Where is that information? What is the infection rate among medical staff? And why should we accept that the general public will experience a better outcome than trained medical staff?
Policy advise based on unrealistic hamster experiments while completely ignoring real-world experience is deliberately misleading. Science advisors have been relying on contrived, unrealistic information that supports a gut feeling. That choice has been deliberate and that choice has misled the public.
Real world experience does show masks work, as long as they're worn properly. The type of mask matters too. They work even better in conjunction with social distancing and proper hygeine. I don't know who said masks are as effective as vaccines, as their mechanism of actions are different. But their effectiveness, which you implicitly agree they do work, is what drives policy and recommendations. There is no seriously reasonable debate or doubt about masks working.
The restrictions and forced closure of businesses are actually based upon recognition that masks do not work. If masks work then there isn't a need to shut down the economy.
Distributing masks and providing training on proper use of masks would have been much less costly than shutting down the economy. If masks work then these obvious government actions would have avoided high unemployment and business failures. If masks work then government action to increase mask use would have lessened the need for testing too.
But the expert advice and real-world government response has been based upon maks not working. The real-world government actions do not match what the public has been told.
CDC director says face masks may offer more protection against COVID than a vaccine. Here's what other experts say.
Belt and suspenders. You have seen the way Americans wear masks. At least 33% are worn ineffectually.
Masks are far from 100% effective; especially those worn by the average citizen. They serve to mitigate the spread but clearly do not prevent it. Social distancing is far more effective than masks but it is often not possible to always keep the necessary distance and ventilation systems compromise the efficacy of social distancing.
This virus is a major challenge to deal with. I am truly sick of observing people nit-pick on common sense practices. Just wear the fucking mask ... properly ... and engage in other precautions until we get past this pandemic.
A key problem is washing one's hands. We routinely touch things (including our faces) and thus spread the virus.
No single measure will keep us safe. We must take multiple precautions and that simply reduces (not eliminates) our likelihood of getting infected.
This, by now, should be common knowledge. Why people continue to argue against these precautions is bizarre.
That's been the go-to classic answer for everything: blame the public. Governors and mayors issue mandates, shut down businesses, and deploy law enforcement to disperse private gatherings. And when that doesn't work the public are the scapegoats.
The classic excuse that experts and politicians depend upon to cover their backsides has been that the public isn't doing what they are told to do. Scapegoating the public is quick, cheap, easy, and requires no leadership.
It should be obvious that no matter what rules are imposed, there will be a faction of the public that will either disregard the precautions or do so poorly (e.g. wearing a mask with the nostrils exposed). If everyone in the public took the precautions to heart we would see far better results.
People are wearing masks. The 'just wear the fucking mask' meme doesn't follow the evidence.
Over the past year, how much time and effort has been expended to inform people how to wear a mask? You know, it is possible to instruct someone how to properly use a mask in 3 minutes; a commercial break during a pro sports spectacular. Have you seen any such public service commercials? I haven't.
Mike Lindell has invested more time selling pillows than has been invested in informing and instructing the public. The 'just wear the fucking mask' meme really doesn't accomplish anything other than providing an excuse for blaming the public.
That means you somehow think that the public should not wear masks.
Of course the public should wear masks. And the public is wearing masks. But this constant scapegoating of the public is growing tiresome.
A mask used improperly can be far more dangerous than not wearing a mask at all. People are wearing masks. And case numbers in areas where masks are mandated are increasing. 'Just wear the fucking mask' hasn't proven to be effective.
The evidence suggests something has been missed.
That is incorrect. Restrictions are meant to supplement masks in mitigating the virus spread. No one method of containment alone is 100% effective. But multiple methods will increase the chances and efficacy of contagion containment.
See previous statement! Masks are the most economical and easiest means of preventing vial spread. But it is not the only one.
You seem to be under the impression that masks are supposed to be 100% effective, so no other precautions are necessary. It would be nice if that were true.
Also incorrect. Government response has been lackluster and more an attempt at damage control than prevention. The public also does not fully follow government recommendations like wearing masks or social distancing.
Because the public has not been following guidelines. We see this when people do not or imperfectly wear masks, go to non-essential social gatherings, poor hygiene, ect.. So yes, the public gets its fair share of blame!
Many do. And many do not. Or they wear one incorrectly. Or use a lesser quality mask.
Actually, it does. It's also just plain common sense.
You underestimate the stubborn ignorance or outright stupidity of the average person.
The virus continues to be spread by the public. So who is to blame?
Perhaps there's an assumption that people will actually do what is necessary, properly and consistently?
What is tiresome is the constant complaining. Masks have never been claimed to be THE sole precaution.
Make up your mind. You cannot be both for and against the wearing of masks.
I see nobody recommending masks be worn over the eyes, in the throat, etc. I see nobody recommending wearing a dirty mask. I see nobody recommending wearing a mask and then using dirty fingers to contaminate the mask. I see nobody recommending sharing masks with each other.
'Wear the fucking mask' implies wearing it properly.
Attempting a political nuance won't change how masks have been touted. Do masks work or don't they? That's a binary choice.
If other measures are necessary then the claim that masks work is rather dubious. We've been advised to avoid indoor gatherings; masks aren't mentioned. We've been advised to social distance; masks aren't mentioned. So, do masks work or don't they?
The claim that masks work is a 100 pct statement. Even Joe Biden's message was just wear a mask. 'Just wear the fucking mask' isn't a nuanced demand.
Perhaps a better approach would be 'just follow the fucking guidelines'. Of course, that would require informing the public about how to follow the guidelines. The old white people making policy decisions don't seem to be aware that none of this is part of public education any longer.
Lackluster? Haven't you seen the unemployment numbers? The government response has been quick, cheap, easy, and required no leadership. Just impose mandates, close businesses, and deploy law enforcement. Blame the public for not doing what they are told to do without trying to find out if the public is following the guidelines or not.
State and local government's response to the pandemic has been entirely political.
And how do you know that? Where's the evidence to support that claim? Anecdotal evidence? Selected news video played over and over?
You know, the experts and politicians have shifted blame onto small private gatherings. That's been the warnings about Thanksgiving and Christmas. Small private gatherings are driving the predictions of post holiday surges in infections and hospitalizations. The holidays has provided another ready made excuse to blame the public.
The virus.
That assumption seems to be based upon the idea that the guideline measures are still part of public education. It appears that public education wasn't included in planning for a pandemic.
I am not blaming the public, I am blaming people who don't wear the mask properly.
I am sure that the public around you is saintly in their adherence to the precautionary measures put in place by your local gov't. /s
No, it's not binary. Not an "all-or-nothing" thing. Masks do work. That's both obvious and proven. But no one claims it's 100% effective. That's why additional methods like social distancing add on to and increase the effectiveness.
See previous statement. Then get off your "binary" way of thinking, as that is not reflective of the real word.
Who's been advising you? Everywhere I go I see masks being a requirement in any establishment along with social distancing.
It's just common sense, which some people apparently lack.
After about a year now, no one can claim they are not aware of the guidelines. The issue now is whether people decide to follow those guidelines.
Like I said, lackluster. But you're right about one thing, there has been no leadership. That's the government's fault.
If they're not following guidelines, then they are to blame. This is readily apparent in those who vocally and demonstrably refuse to wear masks.
Responses have been slow and disorganized. But they are meant to stem the tide of infection.
Aside from turning on the news and hearing at least 1 story about someone protesting masks, all you have to do is look at the numbers. Prevention methods will work when properly utilized. We've seen this in states and countries where guidelines have been enforced and/or followed, as their infection cases have fallen. But overall cases have only gone up, indicating that people are not properly following the guidelines. Again, common sense.
When people gather, the risk of infection is greater. We've seen gatherings (i.e. "Covid parties") resulting in an increase in infection. So it's reasonable to assume that any type of social gathering increases the risk of infection. The only difference is the scale of infection.
If the virus spreads, especially because people gather, then they are to blame.
And how does the virus spread? Come on, use your head!
Guidelines are meant for the public to deal with the pandemic as it's happening. No one planned for it.
Never. Because it has not.
Isn't that what we are attempting to do, as the scientists said??
This whole seed is about a lie, but it is not the scientists who are lying, it is the people who wish us to doubt the scientists and the journalists and the newscasters so theat they can step in and tell us what to believe. Funny, isn't it, that the way to gaslight someone is by telling them that they are being lied to?
Of course the scientific community has been misleading the public. The scientific community has been relying on models that are only as good as the assumptions that have been made.
But does immunity fade? Based on the confusing scientific information that has been reported, the people vaccinated now could become vulnerable to infection before everyone can be vaccinated.
Dr. Anthony Fauci has admitted to changing what he has told the public based on opinion polls and on his own beliefs. That's not science.
That's right! It's not science. It is a scientist talking! He didn't lie, he wasn't sure so he gave a estimate based on the knowledge at hand at the time and said as much. When he revised it upward, he told us why.
But in 1.3 you replied :
So here you are saying the public has not been misled by a scientist.
but then in 1.3.2 you say/reply :
So you agree that the advice given by Dr Fauci is not based on science then. He gave an estimate based on opinion polls, and when the opinion polls changed he gave a different estimate.
To me, this is the center of the problem. We're told to believe a scientist but the scientist is not speaking from science but from what he thinks we want to hear. I can respect Dr Fauci for the good things he has done but for this past year he's been all over the map with his recommendations. When a scientist changes recomendations it is on them to also explain what has changed in the exploration of science that brings about the change, it cannot be due to a change in a public opinion poll.
[[delete]]
Words have meaning. The key words are Deliberately Misled . When you deliberately mislead someone, that is implying nefarious or ill intent. So when someone says, "He misled me," what they are saying is the person who was communicating with them told them misinformation born out of a desire to do them ill or keep them from knowing something that they should so they will think in a certain way. I don't think that you mean to say this of Dr.Fauci.
The article states:
He displays tact when speaking. How unusual. Did you ever stop to think that maybe he thought it was higher all along and didn't have the science behind him to prove it, but then the evidence came in to back his position?
Have you ever asked a scientist a question about a topic that they are not certain on? There answer usually involves large error bars and disclaimers. If you listen to the interview , you will hear how, over the course of a year, he has evolved his opinions based on facts about the virus.
Nerm would have us believe that he just pulled this number out of thin air and was lying to us just for fun and profit, while in the very same article it states that scientists still do not know the exact number, some outlets saying 60 - 70% while others say it could be as high as 90% of people having achieved immunity before we can consider herd immunity to be in effect. I consider this activity by Nerm to either be disingenuous or misinformed. It is certainly misguided.
You said:
Not in the slightest do I agree. You ignore the where he says "new science" and beat to death the opinion polls. This, too, is disingenuous. You claim one thing while knowing the other in an attempt to discredit what he is saying. If you believe what you are saying, I am sorry, but your belief is misplaced.
Dr. Fauci, the scientist, expressed an opinion. As Dr. Fauci points out, the available scientific information supports a range of 60 to 90 pct immunity to achieve herd immunity that would end the pandemic. Dr. Fauci's opinion wasn't based solely upon scientific information, either. Available scientific information supports any opinion; whether expressed by a scientist or by anyone else.
Scientists aren't demigods. They're human. And the opinions of scientists are no different than opinions expressed by non-scientists. When opinions are the basis for formulating policy and those opinions are justified by claiming scientific information is certain then the public has been deliberately misled.
Hahahaha. That is classic. Of course, scientific opinions, when given in their own fields, carry more weight than non-scientific or even scientific opinions which are from out of their "wheel-house" so to speak. They are given with a great deal more understanding of the factors that go into the science behind the opinion. Which is why we don't have janitors giving clinics on proper techniques in brain surgery.
Earlier in the pandemic Dr. Fauci told us that it would be 60-70%. He didn't pull that number out of his ass. It was based on the data on hand at the time. Now, with a more complete picture, more evidence and new scientific data, he has revised his estimate upward to 70 to 90%. It still has massive error bands on it. Truth be told, it doesn't really matter what percentage of the people will need to be immunized, because there are enough people out there who are anti-vaxxers or think the gov't is trying to make them do something that we will never get to that point through vaccine, but will have to suffer out the time with the actual disease still popping up. All because people can be foolish.
Policy is based largely on opinion. All of it, really, if you think about it. There are scientific justifications for a lot of policy, but it all comes down to the will of the people to actually follow that science and vote the representatives in to carry it out.
Nobody ever claimed certainty, so you have no real beef except with the policy or policy makers themselves because the science stands or falls based on evidence.
I've always said, follow the evidence to where it leads, not to where one wants it to go. As science gathers more evidence, we can see more clearly to where it leads.
The available scientific information suggests a range of 60 to 90 pct immunity is required to achieve herd immunity. That range has not changed.
The reality is that Dr. Fauci did pull numbers out of his ass. The fuzziness of available scientific information has not improved. Dr. Fauci is still pulling numbers out of his ass.
Throwing in anti-vaxxers as a way to blame the public and avoid scrutiny of scientists has been the classic method of obfuscating the issue. Scientists are not collecting the evidence needed to make an informed judgement. At this point in the pandemic, hospitals are the data silos. Scientists are relying upon contrived, unrealistic experiments that support a gut feeling. Scientists, like Dr. Fauci, really are pulling numbers out of their asses instead following evidence.
On what basis do you make the assertion about scientists not collecting data or making up numbers? Or did you pull that claim out of your own ass?
The problem is the calculation of the "herd immunity" cannot be made with certainty until after it has been reached because it is based on lagging indicators, but there are ways this indicator, R, can be estimated. Given Dr. Fauci's exposure to the data and his experience with infectious disease, I think that he probably has a much better handle on where this might be.
You say that the hospitals are where the data is, and many if not most of the studies for Covid come directly from hospitals, so I am not sure what you mean by saying the studies are contrived.
Once again, I am not really sure why this little thing is such a large issue with you. He is very upfront with everything and it is not like he is sneaking around putting medicine in your jello, so I don't understand why you think he has nefarious intentions.
NO THEY HAVEN'T
It's tRump supporters and QANon conspirators who are doing that.
I'm not sure why it's an issue at all?
When do we acknowledge that the public has been deliberately misled by the President?
who knows? Fauci just lies about it.
Link?
The seeded article points out that Dr. Fauci has been deliberately moving the goalposts. But according to the New York Times that's not lying.
No, he hasn't. It's you who is deliberately moving the goalposts and lying.
I read a few days ago that they were saying between 70 and 90 % would have to get the vaccine to get to herd immunity , without the vaccine being mandatory , i somehow dont think that will happen , and of course we have the virus mutating as we speak....
There are estimates re: what % of the population will choose to get vaccinated-- and also what % will choose to masks.
But there's another aspect to why many won't-- they're just plain selfish! (They could care less if they spread the virus to other people...
)
That element of course exists .
Personally im far enough down on the supposed list for being eligible for a shot or 2 , that i wont have to worry about that choice until some time in a year or so. and by then , they might have something different to say needs done .
Im not an anti-vaxxer , but i do understand the particular risks i both face and pose to others with that said i will make my choice after assessing the risks myself when the time comes.
Well, of course, it is important to weigh the risks-- the pros and cons of choosing to get the vaccine or not.
There's a very slim chance gettingit it will have a negative impact-- a teeny-tiny number of people have had an allergic reaction.
OTOH, statistically speaking, the risk of no t getting the vaccine are much higher. And of course, one of those risks is the risk of being in the ICU for a long period of time-- and not being able to have friends and family visit.
And then, of course, there is the risk of death.
And even dying alone...
(Sadly, many people who only get their news from Fox are not aware of these facts
)
I'm waiting for any scientist to proclaim themselves as being all knowing about covid. Then I will gleefully point out any and every discrepancy. Until then I will view any estimations as just that... estimations. Estimations on any subject have always varied and are dependent upon the data available.
Don't be silly-- only "Dear Leader" is all knowing!
is Trump really your Dear Leader?
that's funny!
Dramatic exaggeration. What gets into people to try to spin scientists as evil controllers rather than as pioneers? Pathetic.
Scientists aren't evil. But scientists put on their socks one foot at a time, like everyone else lucky enough to have two socks and two feet.
As the seed article explains, Dr. Fauci expressed an opinion that was influenced by perceived public acceptance and gut feelings. Scientists are influenced by the same motivations as anyone else.
Scientific information is most often fuzzy and not certain. The fuzziness of scientific information supports a wide range of opinion. Assuming an authoritative role, justified by expert credentials, for imposing opinion onto society really is deceptive.
Who has imposed their opinion?
[[delete]]
[Deleted. Don't double down on a comment that has already been deleted]