"Snit" wrote in message
...
On Jun 7, 2021 at 7:30:09 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:
but I have found multiple sources saying 70% is what they think
would do it.
None that base that on any rigorous science.
In the past I had seen 80-90%.
Its even higher than that now with the new more virulent
strains but not known with any certainty yet.
I would not be surprised -- but do you have cites to back that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-...ants/100190414
Can you quote where they speak of the number of vaccinated people needed
for herd immunity?
Yep.
https://www.jhsph.edu/covid-19/artic...h-covid19.html
That doesnt say that it only needs to get to 70%.
"What we know about coronavirus so far suggests that,
Suggests isnt your original absolute.
These comments are meant as best guesses, not absolutes.
Easy to say after you have been picked up on your original claim.
Easy to say for those of us who speak English. 
I have no issue with a clarification... but I have no desire for such
games.
Ditto.
if we were really to go back to a pre-pandemic lifestyle, we would
need at least 70% of the population
At least isnt the same as your original.
to be immune to keep the rate of infection down (€śachieve herd
immunity€ť) without restrictions on activities."
You ignored this part.
No need to comment on that bit, it was what herd immunity is about.
The part about herd immunity is key to the point about herd immunity.
Try that again in english, even google translate doesnt do gobbledegook
yet.
New York close to 70%
Even that isnt clear.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-sta...a-vaccine-dose
That isnt saying that its close to 70%.
Just one politician has made that claim without
citing any scientific basis for making that claim.
Do you have contrary data?
You do not. OK.
More mindless troll****, your trademark as that other pointed out
accurately.
He made the claim.
He gets to provide the data that substantiates that claim.
Thats how it works.