We aren't and that was my point. Edgeman suggested vaccines needed to be
perfect or else we'd be unable to rely on them to improve anything. I know he was being facetious, but the point he was trying to make missed the mark and that's what I was trying to point out.
I've been talking about certainty, and maybe I should say likelihood or probability to be more clear, that a policy will have a positive effect like "protecting the vulnerable [while] going on with our lives." Remember, going back to Happy Dog's post this was about whether or not policy should consider natural immunity. I've made that case elsewhere that there's simply fewer unknowns to account for when relying only on vaccines to make these decisions, I don't think I need to rehash that. We're both talking about how to protect the vulnerable while going on with our lives. No one, certainly not I, here is suggesting hiding.
Maybe you are trying to say that we're already at that magic number from NI + Vax, and maybe you can make that case with the numbers. You might be able to convince me of that, but that's not where the discussion was when I joined; it was about if we should count NI in getting to that point which implies we aren't.
Go Hokies!
|
(
In response to this post by vt90)
Posted: 09/29/2021 at 4:25PM