-
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.
ffm-
I'm saying that a low death rate for those infected is a better indicator than cases per million.
Both of which rely on reliable testing to be confident of and will depend on whether your government has bothered to try shielding the vulnerable, you know through things like quarantine, locking down, closing borders and PPE. Which was the point
of that chart.Coincidentallyy USA/UK death rate is through the roof compared to other countries and our health services haven't even been overwhelmed, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make? Cue some smartarse remark...
deleted
https://vk.ovg.ox.ac.uk/vk/herd-immunity
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/17/herd-immunity-is-a-fatal-strategy-we-should-avoid-at-all-costs
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/03/coronavirus-pandemic-herd-immunity-uk-boris-johnson/608065/
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.