Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

442

And discovered that the book distinctly referenced that herd immunity fails when less than 5% of the population is immune.

With how twisted things are these days, they have rebranded it to mean that it only works only when everyone undergoes experimental gene therapy.

EDIT: I found the source. The ISBN is 0321967674, 9780321967671, Campbell Essential Biology with Physiology, Author(s): Eric J. Simon, Jean L. Dickey, Jane B. Reece, Kelly A. Hogan

is a screenshot of my source.

EDIT 2: Apparently I wrote my notes wrong, the book mentions it fails when 5% are unvaccinated, not when less than 5% are immune. It also says according to the CDC, and given their questionable behavior as of late, take that for what you will.

And discovered that the book distinctly referenced that herd immunity fails when less than 5% of the population is immune. With how twisted things are these days, they have rebranded it to mean that it only works only when everyone undergoes experimental gene therapy. EDIT: I found the source. The ISBN is 0321967674, 9780321967671, Campbell Essential Biology with Physiology, Author(s): Eric J. Simon, Jean L. Dickey, Jane B. Reece, Kelly A. Hogan [Here](https://pic8.co/sh/qJH1zO.png) is a screenshot of my source. EDIT 2: Apparently I wrote my notes wrong, the book mentions it fails when 5% are unvaccinated, not when less than 5% are immune. It also says according to the CDC, and given their questionable behavior as of late, take that for what you will.

(post is archived)

[–] • 3 pts

bossman tried to talk 'herd immunity' at me a fewmonths ago, ranting about anti vax folks. I kept quiet and let him vent.

a few weeks later he tried to vaccinate me.

I declined ;)

Still have a job too. He knows better, at least, he does now.

Gotta make em put their money where their mouth is.

[–] • 3 pts

Damn brainwash. All of a sudden being against experimental gene therapy that did not adequately go through the proper trials is considered being anti vax. No one seems to bat an eye to the fact that a billion has been spent to fight 'vaccine hesitance' and yet thus far we have seen nothing but celebrity endorsements, content creator/influencer endorsements, billboard advertisements, bus ads, radio PSAs, commercials, songs, constant social media spotlight, promotional giveaways, and other questionable 'incentives' to get us injected.

The only assurance these injections have is they provide liability immunity to the companies that rushed them out.

[–] • 2 pts

Herd immunity is completely theoretical without any solid studies backing it up. It's logical, but not proven. It also presupposes germ theory is 100% correct when it cannot explain viruses adequately.

Read up on terrain theory and Bechamp vs Pasteur before moving on to very specific ideas like herd theory.

[–] • 2 pts

We are going to have to hear how the unvaccinated are the dangerous ones. I already told my boss I’m not taking it and I will refuse all the way up to finding a new company to work for. He understands and already said he’s never going to force anyone to vaccinate. 8,000 people depend on me to do my job so I know he isn’t going to fire me but if the government mandates it after deeming the vaccine safe and effective then I will be forced to not work here or anywhere anymore. I will go Amish. Fuck this gay earth.

[–] • 1 pt

I 'member herd immunity was 60% and they are now trying to redefine it to 90%

[–] • 1 pt

It depends on the disease. Basically, you calculate the threshold: (R-1)/R, where R is the number of people that a typical person would infect if no one was immune.

Example1: Someone with measles would infect 10 people. If 8 of those people are immune then he infects 2, and those 2 infect 2 each, meaning 4. The disease gets out of control. If 9 out of 10 are immune, then each person only infects 1 person, who then infects 1 person, etc... meaning that it stays steady.

Example 2: Someone with Ebola would infect 2 people. If 3 out of 4 people are immune, then there is only a 50% chance that he infects 1 person, and that person only has a 50% of passing it on, and so the disease quickly dies out.

[–] • 1 pt

So it's math based on assumptions that may not even be correct.

[–] • 0 pt

You're making me want to do math (R-1)/R * Q. Q=chance of infection.

Example 1, R=10 infected, 8 immune. Q = 20% chance of infection (10-1)/10 = 9/10 * 20% = I'm just going to go to sleep now. I don't need math

[–] • 1 pt

Still not getting jabbed

[–] • 1 pt

I made a super simple simulator near the beginning of all this. 40% seemed to be where my way over simplified model would often peak out.

[–] • 0 pt

..... sauce?

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

ISBN for the book is here, 978-0-13-405749-1. I have been looking through my sources for a free version of the book that has it. Sadly, I only have my notes for bio which probably is not substantial.

EDIT. EDIT 2: It turns out I incorrectly wrote the opposite in my notes, the page from the book should clarify.

[–] • 0 pt

I too would like to see some sauce to better understand it. Also, the threshold for herd immunity isn't a fixed number for all diseases. It will vary based on the how susceptible the population is to the disease, the transmission vector, the number of infectious particles needed to transmit, incubation time, and other variables.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

In my country immunity of the cattle will be achieved when 70% are vaccinated. But that figure can be increased any time, up to 100% if "necessary". Isn't that great?

[–] • 0 pt

i remimber when they said 50%

[–] • 0 pt

It depends on the R0 for the disease in question. The higher the value of R0, the higher immunity needed to reach herd immunity.

Load more (1 reply)