Well, first, the research supports what we have always thought, does not overthrow it. They need to pay more attention to the standing literature.

Second, Covid-19 is pretty easily transmitted, so that research suggests it could evolve to be less virulent.

Third, Covid-19 as a disease has two distinct modes (or more), an easily transmitted sub-symptomatic or mile to moderator symptomatic respiratory mode, and a lung-infection mode that is deadly. That is the virulent part of its virulence. That mode is not transmitted at all, or, more accurately, is transmitted from an infected victim to themselves.

The findings suggest that failing to control outbreaks of Covid-19 – or even deliberately encouraging the circulation of the Sars-CoV-2 virus that causes it, as some lockdown sceptics have proposed – could increase the the chance of more harmful forms of the virus emerging in the short term.

Public health experts have been warning for months that trying to achieve herd immunity by letting the virus circulate more-or-less freely is dangerous because it could lead to unnecessary deaths and health services being overwhelmed. However, they have not generally taken into account the possibility that it could make the disease more lethal – at least until sufficient immunity has built up in the human population.

Letting Covid-19 circulate in hope of herd immunity ‘could make it more lethal’

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/29/pence-absent-coronavirus-calls-433637

Only marginally related but: Pfizer has just announced they haven’t met their self-imposed time goal to know whether their vaccine candidate is effective. It’s big new locally because the Portage production site is slated to be a major location for it.
Just a reminder of how difficult vaccine development really is.

The number of deaths has nothing to do with herd immunity.

That the number of deaths is a function of the number of exposures seems to escape you. Admittedly I should have been more specific especially given your propensity for weaselling around any argument.

Even with the huge numbers being infected in the USA in just the last week C: 500,000 brining the total to C: 8,500,000 and deaths at C: 225,000 this is a far cry from the large fraction of the total population, at about 331 million and thus nowhere near the numbers required to achieve herd immunity. Which is a moving target from the shifting nature of the Covid virus this having been pointed out to you from strains of this virus having been detected fine grained enough to recognise from which part of the glob a new infection is coming from.

And the debilitating consequence of long Covid are become more to the fore, as has already been explained to you with evidence.

But let’s put this herd immunity bullshit to bed once and for all. The herd immunity approach is supported by the academic fringe. It is no more a mainstream opinion of how to deal with the pandemic by medical experts and epidemiologists than climate science denial is by climate scientists. Somehow the political right, through the social and mainstream media, has legitimized it. But again, it is expunged by the vast majority of experts. The Lancet article was the tip of the iceberg. The internet is overflowing with rebuttals. The bottom line is that this fringe herd immunity nonsense has nothing to do with science. Doubt over isolation or containment strategies is being spewed by right wing think tanks and corporate groups that are pushing their neoliberal political agenda. What they are trying to do is to create a false dichotomy – that through lockdowns we are sacrificing jobs and the economy. What these cretins never say is what the economic costs and consequences are if half the workforce are off sick, as is happening in the health care and education sectors here. The vast majority of infected people show symptoms of the flu and a significant number – at least 20% – get very ill. As I said, even a majority of those with mild infection end up with enduring legacies.

It is stunning how a fringe, unscientific approach has entered mainstream discourse. This approach is dangerous and threatens the lives and health of a huge number of people. It needs to wiped from the slate. Natural herd immunity has never been intentionally used as a strategy to deal with novel viruses. Look at the countries that implemented isolation or containment strategies – Taiwan, New Zealand, South Korea, China, Singapore etc. Their economies are recovering rapidly and they has very low rates of death and limited second waves.

RickA, as most of us know here, is always wrong, but on this he is more wrong than ever.

Lionel says “The incremental increase in the numbers of deaths compared to the total population is nowhere near to reaching herd immunity and is unlikely to RSN. ”

The number of deaths has nothing to do with herd immunity. What matters are the number of people who get sick and recover, but are now immune, which acts to slow the community spread gradually until R0 is less than 1.

So there’s nothing to worry about. /snark

Just when you think these republican/libertarian shitstains can’t get any more dishonest they do.

The term “bully pulpit” refers to a prominent position (like the office of the president) that allows someone to speak out and be heard. It is not the action of doing so. The first usage I know of comes from Teddy Roosevelt referring to his presidency as his bully pulpit — he meant that the presidency provided him an excellent position from which to advocate for his agendas.

“You might want to read up on herd immunity a bit, because you sound like you don’t know what you are talking about.”

Sorry — I do understand, and I understand you are in denial of facts.

This is simply another case of you believing something that isn’t supportable by the data and evidence we have, and tripling down when it’s pointed out that your stance is not reasonable. It isn’t surprising given your history of denying science in many areas.