Heppenheimer
Well-Known Member
No, this is also opinion, and not even well informed opinion. We have never achieved widespread, lasting herd immunity from any human infectious disease in history without a vaccine. Before the measles and mumps vaccine, the closest we got were very localized, temporary herd immunity from those diseases. But it was never lasting, and it resulted in morbidity and mortality that would be unacceptable today. Allowing the excess, preventable death of several million human beings is not a "viable option".This is really more opinion than science. There is nothing in science that says hundreds of people dying is un-scientific.
This just goes back to people having different perspectives. On the far side is letting everything wide open and let the disease rip through the Earths population and likely in 6 months or less we would be out of the pandemic. Lots of people would die but the pandemic would be over since anyone left will have been naturally immune or they had the virus and recovered. There are a lot of reasons why as humans we shy away from this but it is a viable option (again not a good option but an option nonetheless).
And then there is the full other side of the argument that even 1 virus death is too much and we need to protect everyone from getting sick. Again this would have to have an extreme reaction that most likely no one on Earth would tolerate and it would have a significant amount of deaths too.
So humanity has tried to forge the middle of the road option where the virus is still spreading but hopefully at a level where hospital resources are never overwhelmed and we can hopefully control the number of people who die.
That blog is not science fact it is science opinion.
And the other side of the argument is not "even 1 virus death is too much" and you know it.