Yes. But increased immunity is only useful if it reduces transmission rates substantially, measurably. And that requires a very high immunity rate. It’s poin

Yes. 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?