Andrew Huberman· PhD
They were the public health authorities were talking about 70 80 90% were using it as a essentially a synonym for disease eradication which it is not.
Loading…
We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
They were the public health authorities were talking about 70 80 90% were using it as a essentially a synonym for disease eradication which it is not.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
instead what public health authorities decided to do was to take the vaccine and say that we could use it to eradicate COVID. They implied it. They didn't exactly say that but they very very they would say things like well if 80 70 80 90% of the population gets the vaccine then we will have achieve her immunity as if it were some permanent state rather than a transitory state having to do with the fraction of the population they're currently immune versus the the uh you know that's that's a herd immunity is a very is a clear mathematical construct in epidemiological models of disease spread. They were the public health authorities were talking about 70 80 90% were using it as a essentially a synonym for disease eradication which it is not.