Doesn't need to be 100% - has been well modelled 85% would be enough.
Also the pressure on the health care system would be much lower then - alternatively, if everyone who is unvaccinated would just sign off that he doesn't want hospital treatment and stays home I would be almost fine as well (still annoyed by the innocent victims they maybe infect..).
> especially those under 60 and without any co-morbidities the chances of COVID requiring hospitalization, let alone ICU admission is negligible.
So wrong, please look again at our numbers, small percentage on big numbers is unfortunately still too much.
> anyone who doesn't get the vax is selfish
Here, in this situation, with all we know, it currently 100% is, 110% YES.
>Doesn't need to be 100% - has been well modelled 85% would be enough.
I can't believe anybody seriously believes that. In addition to the fact that different expers have quoted different figures, and prominent health officials have admitted to deliberately lying about the percentage needed, you have to realize that many of the parameters that go into such a model still have huge error bars.
If the quoted figure was '85%, plus or minus 10%, has a 95% chance of granting herd immunity', I _might_ take it seriously. I think that's still overstating the confidence we have.
Also the pressure on the health care system would be much lower then - alternatively, if everyone who is unvaccinated would just sign off that he doesn't want hospital treatment and stays home I would be almost fine as well (still annoyed by the innocent victims they maybe infect..).
> especially those under 60 and without any co-morbidities the chances of COVID requiring hospitalization, let alone ICU admission is negligible.
So wrong, please look again at our numbers, small percentage on big numbers is unfortunately still too much.
> anyone who doesn't get the vax is selfish
Here, in this situation, with all we know, it currently 100% is, 110% YES.