The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
well herd immunity is the idea that if enough of the population gets exposed to a virus and develops antibodies the virus can really spread anymore because there are so many people that really can't Harbor the virus that can spread the virus
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.
herd immunity is really the other side of what you were talking about the are not factor so if the herd immunity means if you have a virus that's extremely contagious for people who are susceptible to be protected from the infection you have to have most of the people around them be resistant to the virus