argument top image

Is herd immunity the best way to beat coronavirus? Show more Show less
Back to question

Herd immunity strategy has come under scrutiny. Herd immunity assumes a large section of the population will be infected. Rather than enforce lockdown measures, herd immunity encourages social distancing in public places. The aim is to have as many low-risk people infected as possible. Immune people cannot infect others. Therefore, the more there are, the faster we kill its exponential growth, and the easier it will be to treat the vulnerable. The WHO has criticised the approach, as have many others. Is the Swedish government correct?

Herd immunity is irrelevant Show more Show less

Herd immunity ensures public health through an immunisation programme
< (4 of 4)

Questioning the merits of herd immunity is, in itself, a misnomer

In the absence of a vaccine, the only chance we have of trumping this virus is by achieving herd immunity.
< (2 of 2)

The Argument

Here's what a lot of us don't really want to hear: the truth of the matter is that it's not just Sweden who are trying to achieve herd immunity. Sweden is the only country who is trying to ostensibly achieve herd immunity. There is a distinction. All of these lockdown measures are just a slow-burn approach to herd immunity, without any government saying it outright. In the absence of a vaccine, the only chance we have of trumping this virus is by achieving herd immunity. Sweden will obviously reach herd immunity faster given its lack of lockdown. But the rest of the world is heading for periodic lockdowns and there is no vaccine available. In practice, this means the rest of the world is also doing its best to achieve herd immunity, just in slow motion. Without a vaccine, all we have is herd immunity. Or else it is the end of life as we have known it.

Counter arguments

Premises

Rejecting the premises

References

Vote

Not sure yet? Read more ↑

Discuss

This page was last edited on Tuesday, 26 May 2020 at 09:41 UTC

Explore related arguments