3 ms·

The original answer to your question does not involve herd immunity, so why did you reference this? You need to re-read what was said before because your comme

• rglullis 4y ago
  The sibling comment (the one that I originally responded) stated that "I don't understand vaccines because individual effects are not as potent without the herd effects" and that "if you oppose mandates, you don't understand vaccines and you are anti-vax" Your "argument" (or whatever passed for one) was "you lack a critical understanding of how vaccines work, so you are inclined (sic?) to be anti-vaxx" The issue of both the sibling comment and your own is that they assume that any two people with the same information can only reach the same "logical" conclusion. My response was an attempt to show that this is not true. - It is possible to simultaneously (a) understand the concept of herd immunization, (b) take the vaccine and campaign for others to do the same and (c) still be against vaccine mandates. - It is possible to simultaneously (a) understand the importance of keeping R0 low, (b) take the vaccine and campaign for others to do anything possible to reduce spread and (c) still be against vaccine mandates. - It's not because someone is against vaccine mandates, that the person is anti-vax. Does it help if I lay everything out like this, or would you need me to pre-chew it a bit for you?