Just curious who agrees or disagrees with Swedens virus approach. Of 30 people I personally know in my area, 25 people agree with Sweden's approach and believe it's best to suffer short term for longer term results. The five people who didn't agree were very aggressive in their beliefs. First vote was from me in favour of herd immunity but I would bet that this poll will sway heavily against it. Going to be interesting how it turns out.
I'm over 60 and so is most of my family and we probably all have some risk factors. I've said this before, but because I live in a small town, people are forced to take care of themselves because of the limitations of local hospitals, so they end up researching and sharing information with each other. Nurses contribute a lot to helpful information around here too and are really a wealth of untapped knowledge.
I’m 62 and live in NJ, the most densely populated state in the US. I have to shop at Walmart and get groceries. I have a disabled wife who would probably not survive, so, I think it’s just a little cruel to say every man/person for themself.
I'm not saying every man for himself as I and others would be in the risk factor category too, but we are trying to better ourselves in seeking ways that we think could protect ourselves from this or any other virus. Would be disappointed if you try and turn this thread into a controversial one.
Neighbour to the left of me 90+ years old, to the right 75+ with disabled wife, behind both over 80 and all are for herd immunity so they think it's fine. I'm not saying we are right or wrong, but they like the idea of having our own bodies fight this off.
I’m didn’t start the thread, you did. You picked the topic. I was hoping to just explained why I disagree with your “herd”. And it is a very controversial topic.
If you’re willing to take the brutal reality of herd immunity. The basics of herd immunity is everyone gets it and those who can’t overcome the disease perish. Making the herd stronger by weeding out the weak. If everyone gets the disease in a short time span then life saving beds and equipment can only be used once. If spread with fewer people having the disease at any given time. Then more people will use the finite resources in turns. An interesting approach to take these days with over population. Of those 30 people you’ve talked to and only one gets the needed respirator and 5 don’t your herd will be smaller but stronger. If taken to the next step as nature has then only the best males and female should be breeding. Maybe instead of trying to save as many as possible, we should have breeding standards and permit boards.
You didn't just agree, you also said "so, I think it's just a little cruel to say every man/person for themself". Putting words into peoples mouths to try and make this thread go bust.
Well by all means, go on down to your local hospital and have some of the nice nurses let you into the Covid-19 ward, Roll around in the germs with no protection and then come back and have your covid-19 herd immunity party.
Then in 5-6 weeks or so, have your next of kin/coroner or local CDC get back to us of how that worked out for your herd.
See, no controversy at all.
Easy Peasy, have at it.
Uh, no.
Herd immunity is having the majority of people vaccinated and therefore the ones who aren’t/can’t be vaccinated are much less likely to get in contact with an infected person. https://i.imgur.com/J7LANQ4.mp4
Remember, even when herd immunity is fairly well established, as with measles, you can always get one or several antivax people with three or four children in contact with those around them, and blam, another outbreak.
A. Many people contract the disease and in time build up an immune response to it (natural immunity).
B. Many people are vaccinated against the disease to achieve immunity.
What method did Sweden take? Option B doesn’t exist yet.