4 ms·
You’re saying that maybe CA should have done some middle ground closure since that might have help a little more with increasing immunity. My point is that the
by TomVDB 6y ago
You’re saying that maybe CA should have done some middle ground closure since that might have help a little more with increasing immunity.
My point is that the goal of increasing immunity is pointless unless it can be raised to a very high percentage and without taking massive casualties.
Without a vaccine, that’s simply not possible for COVID-19.
And thus that suggestion doesn’t make a lot of I sense.
The benefit of a slight higher but still very low level of immunity is so small that there’s no point.
- standardUser 6y agoThe point of raising immunity is to (speculatively) make it easier to keep the transmission rate low. So other measures become less necessary. Maybe we could open schools, for example. This seems to be what has happened in the places that have been hit hardest. But obviously partial immunity in the population is only one factor impacting the transmission rate. There's masks and lack of indoor gatherings, etc. Though I hear in France, which was hit very hard, they're not even bothering with masks any longer.
- TomVDB 6y agoYes. But increased immunity is only useful if it reduces transmission rates substantially, measurably. And that requires a very high immunity rate. It’s pointless to pursue an increase in immunity when the transmission rate only reduces by some negligible amount that’s in the noise. In how many ways do I have to restate the same concept?