1. Vaccines, immunitized people don't get sick in the process of imunization, don't need hospitalization, don't die
2. Slow and gradual imunization over multiple years.
Neither of this is uphold all other cases of herd imunization in history I'm aware of always had a massive price in human lives.
Also it only works if the virus doesn't mutate to much, party of the reason the flu is still around even through you would believe we got herd imunization in last many decades since the flu is a think.
> 1. The virus is genuinely of low danger to the young and healthy
Except it's not really that low it's only compared to old people low.
And it's close to practically impossible to only affect young people without having idk concentration camps for young people with strict separation from the older people (like over 20?,30?) for a duration of over a month and still 2 in 1000 or so dying. AND it's anyway to late for that measurements as it's already to widely spread in the UK eitherway.
That is... not a good description of herd immunity at all. It has nothing to do with vaccinations or time scales. Wikipedia's is quite clear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity
The idea is that once a significant fraction of the population has some immunity to an infection, the ability of an infected person to spread the virus (a term called "R0" in the jargon) is fundamentally impeded by its ability to find infectable targets. So the R0 drops, and so does the exponent to the growth. Once that exponent goes below 1, the number of cases drops over time instead of growing, and new infection clusters can't start.
This works. It's why we don't have things like measles outbreaks (or didn't, until the anti-vax crowd messed things up) and why newly mutated flu strains can't find purchase and become pandemics.
You seems to think that people who is against the idea either doesn't understand what herd immunity is, or doesn't understand the plan. We understand both, we just think that the risk analysis is wrong.
Specifically with the GP, his argument is that herd immunity gaining through large percentage of the population being infected in a short amount of time is a bad idea. Normally we got herd immunity via vaccination of the population, since it is much safer than being infected. That's why vaccination was mentioned.
1. Vaccines, immunitized people don't get sick in the process of imunization, don't need hospitalization, don't die
2. Slow and gradual imunization over multiple years.
Neither of this is uphold all other cases of herd imunization in history I'm aware of always had a massive price in human lives.
Also it only works if the virus doesn't mutate to much, party of the reason the flu is still around even through you would believe we got herd imunization in last many decades since the flu is a think.
> 1. The virus is genuinely of low danger to the young and healthy
Except it's not really that low it's only compared to old people low.
And it's close to practically impossible to only affect young people without having idk concentration camps for young people with strict separation from the older people (like over 20?,30?) for a duration of over a month and still 2 in 1000 or so dying. AND it's anyway to late for that measurements as it's already to widely spread in the UK eitherway.