Herd immunity is not going to happen

You claimed "if the vaccinated can often be infected and spread the virus themselves, then the whole concept is out the window". So yeah, nonsense.

The concept of vaccination is not "out the window", there are huge benefits to vaccination even if it doesn't prevent people from getting infected and spreading the virus. As regards herd immunity, even if it requires everyone getting infected with the virus, that can still happen. It was hoped we could achieve herd immunity via vaccination alone but that isn't the only goal of the vaccination plan. The other goals of hugely reduced severe illness and mortality are going very well and can still allow for herd immunity to be achieved even if not via vaccination alone.

Bringing how we protect the vulnerable into it now seems like moving the goalposts from where you started. Would the answer to that question be any different without vaccines? If anything, vaccines have made them easier to protect. Fair enough having a conversation around how we protect the vulnerable but you seem to be making out that vaccines are a problem in that (several times mentioning no chance of reaching herd immunity via vaccination).

Great response to that hysterical nonsense. This data is very interesting and very encouraging (for younger cohorts especially). Thanks for sharing.

No I don't, I have used your exact words several times.

You talk about not reaching herd immunity via vaccination, why? We can still reach it via infection, only vaccines mean we avoid most of the negative consequences of that happening naturally.

You asked how do we protect the vulnerable, would the answer to that question be any different without vaccines?

Based on data from other places (e.g., Estimation of Total Immunity to SARS-CoV-2 in Texas | medRxiv) it's likely that a notable proportion of people are immune but don't realise it via asymptomatic infection. As far as I'm aware, calculations for vaccination levels needed for herd immunity assume statistical independence between those who are previously infected, and those who've been vaccinated. If this assumption is violated then the level of vaccination needed for herd immunity is lower.

Back of the envelope based on the Texas data of seropositivity, that shows that this assumption is significantly violated, it reduces the requirement for herd immunity from 80% vaccination to ~50%. If the vaccines worked for delta then I assume we'll have herd immunity soon in Ireland.

Herd immunity cannot happen even with 100% vaccination coverage because of the number of "breakthrough" or repeat infections. They alone will be enough to sustain the virus in a population so that we never get herd immunity.

And the fact that there are now several animal reservoirs of the virus (including deer) - covid is not going anywhere

That is by definition, not herd immunity.

Herd immunity is where there is enough immunity in a population to prevent circulation of a virus - so those who cant get vaccinated can still be protected. We cannot get to that level for SARS-COV-2 because its too infectious, you can still get infected and shed virus even when vaccinated, and at a (relatively) high rate compared to other viruses. So we will never get that population level protection.

The first large scale vaccinations only started in Dec. Why would anyone think this would be gone in 8 or 9 months.

Why would people be giving and throwing in the towel on vaccinations after a few months. I don't get it.

"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eradication_of_infectious_diseases"

I get banned from lots of diverse threads. I post verifiable but unpopular opionions. I like to question things. I read a lot of diverse opinions. Does not make me an anti-vaxxer. I am very much pro vaccine and have been vaccinated. I question lots of chemical/drug among others claims such as pesticides biocides anti-depressants sun screen GM products. fertilizers, preservatives etc. Does not mean I doubt their effectiveness or will never use them. Seems any opinion/query/view that does not meet the mainstream opinion is best dealt with a thread ban and a label of 'anti-vaxxer'. I will probably get a forum ban now. Censorship is alive and well.

I don't think herd immunity via vaccination was the plan though was it?

I though the vaccine was to prevent serious illness, hospitalisations and death.

Are you in favour of lockdown?

Because that is the alternative.

It's that simple.

No, I'm in favour of working on actual treatments rather than burying heads in the sand and thinking vaccination will bring us all back to normal.

Are they mutually exclusive??

Like, there are billions of euros being spent on developing treatments right now.

However, until they arrive, we need to vaccinate as many people as possible to reduce the impact of the virus.

Or, again, we go back into a winter of lockdowns.

As long as the average infected person infects less than one person (which the vaccines allow us to get to) then herd immunity will be reached.

Herd immunity doesn't mean elimination, it means that the virus dies out quickly because it can't jump from host to host but that pockets of infections can occur, and this puts the risk to the general population into very small figures.

It doesn't mean it can't happen, people die of diseases like measles where we have herd immunity every year, but the % dying is a tiny fraction of what it would be without herd immunity.

Also important to remember that herd immunity is a concept rather than something strictly defined and can mean different things for different diseases, what it's really about is making the risk of infection so low that it's not worth caring about, with (usually) an eventual goal of eliminating the disease entirely if the vaccination rollout continues (which is why idiot anti-vaxxers are such big idiots, they were the biggest idiots before SARS-COV2, are the biggest idiots during SARS-COV2 and will continue being the biggest idiots after SARS-COV2).