Depends on how many. If the only ones are children and the immunocompromised then there will never be community spread and it will die out.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Jun 27 2021 11:59am

That's assuming a uniform mixing of all age groups in society. "If we get to a vaccination rate of (1 - 1/R0)%, then we have herd immunity" is only valid as long as the remaining, unvaccinated population doesn't cluster. But that's exactly what would happen among the young children/in schools etc.

Also note that this is a zoonosis which can use animals as a reservoir, so even if we can get infections among all humans to literally zero, the virus would still not be eradicated.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jun 27 2021 12:13pm

If they cluster is largely irrelevant for children since they would quickly burn through new low risk hosts and community spread wouldn't initiate. If everybody outside of those clusters is vaccinated you're fine, and if there is major spread starting you can initiate localized measures to slow it.

But that's exactly what they disagree with: the WHO and these public health experts are suggesting that we cannot allow the virus to burn through the schools and also that incidences have to be kept low no matter what, that local spread cannot be accepted even if everyone who's remotely at risk has been vaccinated.

That's really the key question going forward: once everyone from the eligible population had a fair chance at getting vaccinated, is it reasonable to continue to mandate mask wearing or issue local closures, potentially local lockdowns, so that case numbers can be kept down? The WHO and the usual covid-hawks among the experts seem to increasingly position themselves toward the latter, and I neither see a cogent reasoning for that nor am I willing to accept it. Effectively, it would mean that the covid measures would persist indefinitely, which imho is completely unacceptable.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jun 27 2021 12:54pm

Depends on how many of the eligable get vaccinated. If we reach 100% then we can effectively return to normal. If there are too many holdouts then they're going to be the ones holding us back. If everybody except small enclaves are vaccinated we can effectively leave them to their fate.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Jun 27 2021 01:17pm

Why would many unvaccinated hold us back? Just allow the community transmission that these people cause, they die or not, and everyone else who got their jab will be fine. I dont see the problem with leaving those who knowingly refuse the jab to be left to their fate, no matter if their enclaves are small enough or not.

You're indirectly agreeing with the viewpoint that rising infections among the fully vaccinated cannot be tolerated.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jun 27 2021 01:30pm

The fully vaccinated largely won't experience rising infections because 95% of them are immune.

The issue with people refusing is because they endanger those who can't get vaccinated. If there are enough holdouts that there is still low level spread then we still endanger those people who have no choice and the 5% who tried but didn't gain immunity.

If there are enclaves of unvaccinated then there will continue to be restrictions on those cities or towns.

its not a vaccine. it is EXPERIMENTAL EXPERIMENTAL EXPERIMENTAL mRNA gene therapy no matter how many times the eyes are shut to that fact. all the animals died. what did they die of? what killed the test animals ????? its unfuking believable people stampede their mooooo assess and get jabbed with that poison.

no you wont no you wont because there will always me the next boogy woogidy new variant to lock down for till the next round of jabs MOOOOOOOOOO