Given that vaccine uptake is now asymptotically approaching 100 %,the best anti-vaxxers can hope to achieve is to delay the time when the limit is reached. With coverage so close to being total, what is the point of delay? what does delay accomplish?
Given that vaccine uptake is now asymptotically approaching 100 %,the best anti-vaxxers can hope to achieve is to delay the time when the limit is reached. With coverage so close to being total, what is the point of delay? what does delay accomplish?
Good to see that so many 16 to18 yearolds have got vaccinated in such a short time. Good sign of social responsibility.
Given that vaccine uptake is now asymptotically approaching 100 %,the best anti-vaxxers can hope to achieve is to delay the time when the limit is reached. With coverage so close to being total, what is the point of delay? what does delay accomplish?
Answering from the rational world...nothing to gain through delay, unless you want to prolong the pandemic.
Why would 100% coverage be a good thing?
Well for a start we are actually following the science. You know, the stuff that has been published in scientific textbooks for many decades.
To prevent community spread of an infectious disease with an R0 < 2 the base vaccination rate is less than 50%. No difference in community infection rate between a vaccination rate of 50% and 99%. None.
Anyone proposing a higher vaccination rate than 50% either does not know the science or is lying for ulterior motives.
That of course assumes a high efficacy sterilized immunity vaccine. Like all the other ones you got in the past. Apart from the flu shot that is.
But as none of the SARs CoV 2 vaccine are sterilizing vaccines with high efficacy well if they were traditional vaccine types with very low averse response rates well then maybe less of a problem. But they are completely unproved vaccine types with averse response rates two orders of magnitude higher than all other approved vaccines, then no sale.
Well maybe if SARs CoV 2 had a very high attack, high IFR and CFR over all population groups well maybe there might be something in favor of vaccines. But SARs CoV 2 has a low attack rate, low IFR and only has a high CFR in old sick people. Who die at the same rate from SARs 2 viral pneumonia as they do in every other year.
So tell me ewloe why have you taken a completely unproven vaccine with unknown side effects which has low efficacy for a short period of time for a disease that has very low health risk for you and kills old sick people at non elevated rates. An infectious disease that most people get in or through hospitals.
Is it because you are credulous and easily brainwashed by the media and will believe any old lies told to you by public health bureaucrats at the behest of their ass covering political masters.
My decision not get vaccinated with a mRNA or adenovirus vaccine is based purely on the actual published science. Or lack of it when it comes to safety. Not some political motivated propaganda in the media. For exactly the same reason I'm getting my ten year Tdap booster and shingles vaccine. Because I know the science and can do the maths.
So do you believe any old sh*te some guy with fancy paper qualifications tell you? Even though a cursory review of the relevant literature shows them to be lying.
@jmc So do you believe any old sh*te some guy with fancy paper qualifications tell you?
not in your case, i am sceptical about you.
The only reason R< 2 at the moment is due to the high rate of vaccination and and prior infection. Infection rate is clearly a function of the virus characteristics and those of the population.
There is a clear reduction in deaths/infection since mass vaccination. This cannot be denied, so your "scientific reasoning" against vaccination is obviously wrong.
Perhaps you should write down some of your basic maths and we can peer review it.
No it isn't. Even the MMR Jab 'only' has take up rate of 90%
Deaths may have been delayed but they haven't been prevented (Hint: everyone dies). Plenty of old and otherwise ill/infirm people (those who the real world data and the science tells us are by far are the ones who die from respiratory illnesses such as may be causes by this virus, and others including the common cold) will die this winter just as they normally do, covid jab or no covid jab.
The question will be, along with others, how will the jabbed deaths be defined compared with people who die but haven't been jabbed in order for the govt/SAGE to push more draconian anti-democratic policies on those who are still clinging to some sense of life and normality, but haven't been jabbed.
