On 2021-06-08, Rod Speed wrote:
"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.
Exactly.
In a previous post you asked snit what he was looking for.
Snit is looking to troll and suck people into his snit circus.
Nothing more than that.
Here is what happens when someone makes the mistake of engaging snit in
a dialog.
It is the end result almost 100 percent of the time.
It comes from one of the links in my siggie.
"36- George Graves: "Jason. You have started an argument with
the Snit (AKA Michael Glasser), this should not be done. He
will drive you crazy with his twisted logic, his deep-rooted
need to be ALWAYS right at any cost. He will move goalposts,
set up strawmen, and bore you into submission with his endless
pedanticism. The only way to engage him is to hit and run. NEVER
engage him, it's a futile, empty procedure that will only anger
you and feed him. Take my advice and STAY AWAY!" 27 Oct 2004"
--
pothead
Tommy Chong For President 2024
Lifetime Member of "The Prescott Parasite Eradication Team"
Ask snit how he ****ed on his cat.
All about snit read below. Links courtesy of Ron:
https://web.archive.org/web/20181028....com/snit.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20190529.../snitlist.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20190529...ieMethods.html