-
https://vk.ovg.ox.ac.uk/vk/herd-immunity
There's been lots on this since BoJo and chums first tried to float this idea and got pilloried for it, in this thread and all over the news. 'Herd immunity' without a vaccine is just 'let the vulnerable die' and the fact that we don't even know what percentage of the population have had it means you've no way of quantifying how far along that route we are.
Really CBA going over it again.
deleted-
You're really missing the point quite hard. I'm not saying that an approach of just letting the vulnerable die to achieve herd immunity is a good thing. I'm saying that a low death rate for those infected is a better indicator than cases per million. The best-case scenario is that everyone gets it and nobody dies, the worst case scenario is that everyone who gets it dies.
-
'Herd immunity' without a vaccine is just 'let the vulnerable die' and the fact that we don't even know what percentage of the population have had it means you've no way of quantifying how far along that route we are.
The problem is that "lockdown until there's a vaccine or other solution" will end up killing way more than the scenario above.
ffm
Greenbank
Has it? Anyway, it's not a call for a herd-immunity approach, it is an indication that you're actually some way to achieving it. If you've had a lot of infections with very few deaths then it indicates that you have managed to protect the most vulnerable while moving some way towards having the herd-immunity that will protect those people in the long-term. I'm not saying that any country has been able to achieve that, I'm suggesting that it's a better metric than number of cases per million.