And it can lower the spread enough to let the disease die out.

Only if you don't understand the bare bones basics of epidemiology.

No vaccine directly stops spread. Large groups of vaccinated people do because vaccines lower your susceptibility.

> Yes, I did my second masters in computational chemical engineering..

Which is not even remotely the same at all. It's funny you think it is though.

> I'm not continuing this silly conversation, I'm cringing at myself for even engaging w you

Have fun!

> Dude, just stop.. you know damn well that an applied mathematics degree doesn't make you a subject matter expert in any field that happens to enploy applied mathematics..

Do you know what applied computational mathematics actually is?

> Are you also an expert on structural engineering and genomics?

Structural engineering and genomics aren't epidemiology. Nor are they even remotely as specifically based on dynamical systems.

> ..and that a masters degree hardly qualifies as "extensive research".

Uh-huh. I just had to write a masters thesis on the subject. I guess I didn't do any research at all. Right?

> I'm not saying you haven't done but that's hardly self-evident from your flair, mate.

Unless you understand the field, and what it is.

> Yeah, and noone said it wasn't, it's the fact that you think you're exempt from it that's weird

What specific claims did I make that required me to cite/prove because they were beyond baseline knowledge of the subject?

> Except from you apperently

I repeat my previous question.

> You're being obtuse.. It's cringe that you're appealing to your mathematics degree which you think makes you an authority on epidemiology

Do you know what epidemiology is? Do you know what applied computational mathematics is? Do you know what mathematical and computational biology is?

Yes. I'm appealing to my extensive study and my research on epidemiology.

> And the other commenter needs to cite sources because they don't have a flair?

The other commenter made many dubious and questionable claims. Asking them to prove said claims instead of accepting them as fact is prudent and proper for scientific discussion.

> I think you'd be surprised how many flairless ppl have "proven education".. so yeah, cringe

Then these people should be able to back up their assertions and claims. As all of us have had to do.

It's oh so cringe that I have a verifiable and proven education. Lol.

You're trying to shift the burden of proof to me because I called your bullshit out, and you dont have the ability to actually back up the nonsense you keep making up about epidemiology.

Grow up. If you want to spout uneducated nonsense in the science subreddit, be prepared to be called out for it.

I'm being critical because you're making things up and passing that garbage as knowledge.

> You have refuted nothing. Where are your citations that I am wrong about anything?

My flair on this subreddit is citation enough when we're talking about simple things like your comments.

> Sorry kid I am making comments on Reddit. No citations needed. Go kick rocks.

And I'm free to call you out for being a kid who makes things up, then balks when asked to back up your BS.

> I’m not against the shot. But here is the reality. The vaccine doesn’t prevent you from getting it nor does it prevent you from spreading it. Because of that, no matter how many shots are given to each person, there can not be herd immunity.

You need to learn some basic epidemiology. Herd immunity doesn't, nor has it ever relied on 100% effective vaccines (which have never existed). It requires the vaccine efficacy to reduce the effective R value below 1 so that the virus dies out and can't properly spread.

You're trying to apply static, reductionist and simplistic reasoning to a complex nonlinear dynamical system. That will never work. Nor is it a remotely reasonable thing to do.

> Only 24% of the hospitalizations in my area are unvaccinated. The other 75% are vaccinated. Over half of those are up to date on the vaccine. At that point, it’s up to the individual.

You're now trying to compare numbers which require calculus without the use of calculus. That's not how math or statistics works at all.

I suggest you try to learn the bare bones basics of epidemiology (including the necessary mathematical prerequisites) before trying to comment in the science subreddit about it.

Agreed. That's why future restrictions probably don't make sense. The restrictions when it first came out made sense due to the smaller supply. But now that it doesn't require as much R&D to produce a vaccine which can match the new variants (aka mRNA vaccine technology is incredible), there really isn't a need for the restrictions as much

The only point in restricting is it when supply concerns come into play. You want the most vulnerable to be the most protected. If that's not an issue, restrictions don't make sense.

> Your statement is bizarre about the unvaccinated having anything to do with the state we are in.

Higher transmission and infection rates create a higher probability of mutation. The only bizarre thing is ignoring that well documented and well observed outcome.

> therefore tends to evolve toward being more infectious and less deadly context still matters

You seem to be trying to give some intelligent and predetermined goal to a virus. Mutations are random. Whether one mutation dominates another may depend on this, but the actual evolutionary path of the virus does not.

Where did you hear that it would?

> The only likely thing is that the next mutation will be better able to replicate and spread.

According to what?

> So yeah, bizarre

Your assertions are extremely bizarre indeed. I'd like to know where you get them from and what evidence you have to back them up.

Yes and no. A higher infection rate bad in its own way. Even though there's a lower mortality rate.

The flu is mind and has a low infection rate. That makes it have wildly different dynamics in how it spreads through a population.

> There were doubts really early whether herd immunity was even possible due to the nature of coronaviruses. Again, much like how herd immunity with the flu is also impossible

Lol. No. Herd immunity is possible with the flu, but the infection rate and mortality rates combined have never warranted it.

We literally wiped out a flu strain in 2020 due to all of the covid restrictions.

> That's not remotely close to what has happened.

You need to qualify this assertion with data and research.

> Second, COVID currently is not more deadly than the flu if you're vaccinated

Clinical mortality rate isn't, nor has it ever been the only determining factor of when vaccines should be used. The effective R value is always considered. Covid is over 1 and past the bifurcation point for epidemic spread. Influenza teeters around 1. Comparing the two doesn't make any sense from an epidemiological standpoint. The dynamics of covid spread is very different than that of influenza spread.

> Finally, the hope is for a fast spreading strain that is as deadly as the common cold which is to say not at all.

What? Where did you hear/read this nonsense? The hope is to push the effective R value below 1 so that we can get past the bifurcation point of epidemic spread.

> A virus becomes less deadly over time when it starts with a high mortality rate.

Where are you getting this from? That highly depends on multiple factors of the virus. Including how stable the virus is.

> Either way if you're vaccinated you have little worries of death.

Why are you so focused on death and ignoring the infection rate? Measles has a pretty low death rate but has absurd infection rate. That's why it's important to vaccinate against it.