Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WVUALLEN" data-source="post: 131766697" data-attributes="member: 1112294">From WebMD on Spanish flu relating to Covid. Herd immunity is a false presumption.[URL unfurl=&quot;true&quot;]https://www.webmd.com/coronavirus-in-context/video/howard-markel[/URL]A lot of people who got the flu got a secondary bacterial pneumonia. And that's what killed them, because there was no medication for that.Herd immunity was never developed as a population kind of a measure when a virus spreads through a community. It was based on active immunity, giving people immunizations, giving lots of children&nbsp; immunizations, for example, for measles, mumps. And when you immunized actively, 90 or more of percent of a community,&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; then when that infection came into that community, subsequently, it would not spread.The notion of letting it rip and letting a lot of people get it-- first of all, you would never get levels of 60% to 90%, which is what people are estimating you would need. 20% simply wouldn't do it.&nbsp; And what is the point of living in the 21st century, if we're relying on 13th century methodologies of letting it spread throughout a community to protect us? Not to mention the incredible expense of taking care of people and the terrible tragedy of those who would die.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WVUALLEN, post: 131766697, member: 1112294"] From WebMD on Spanish flu relating to Covid. Herd immunity is a false presumption. [URL unfurl="true"]https://www.webmd.com/coronavirus-in-context/video/howard-markel[/URL] A lot of people who got the flu got a secondary bacterial pneumonia. And that's what killed them, because there was no medication for that. Herd immunity was never developed as a population kind of a measure when a virus spreads through a community. It was based on active immunity, giving people immunizations, giving lots of children immunizations, for example, for measles, mumps. And when you immunized actively, 90 or more of percent of a community, then when that infection came into that community, subsequently, it would not spread. The notion of letting it rip and letting a lot of people get it-- first of all, you would never get levels of 60% to 90%, which is what people are estimating you would need. 20% simply wouldn't do it. And what is the point of living in the 21st century, if we're relying on 13th century methodologies of letting it spread throughout a community to protect us? Not to mention the incredible expense of taking care of people and the terrible tragedy of those who would die. [/QUOTE]

Name