Except the concept of "herd immunity" is far from settled. That was the policy that Sweden initially tried to implement, by refusing to close down and just basically allowing people to fend for themselves...
But that hasn't been what's happened. Death rates have exceeded any expectations and far exceed the numbers in neighboring countries like Norway, Denmark, and Finland... And antibody development has been far lower than what they expected/ planned on...
- "Anders Tegnell, the country's chief epidemiologist, admitted that fewer people had developed antibodies than health authorities had predicted.
- In April, he told the Financial Times that he expected 40% of people in Stockholm, the capital, to be immune to Covid-19 by the end of May."
If those numbers had been met, then the ultimate goal of 60% and partial herd immunity of the entire population would be within reach. But figures from late May show only 6.1% of Sweden's population has developed antibodies. Meanwhile, Sweden has had over 5,000 deaths, and the death rate per 100,000 (36) is considerably higher than the US (27) and Denmark (9)...
https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-hopes-fade-for-swedens-herd-immunity-experiment-2020-6
Sweden was an idiot in doing it as a one plan for all ages strategy.
if staying open the whole time, they needed to separate out the olders first, and not include olders in that strategy.
i'm guessing their age based stats mirror ours, and they don't have many younger deaths either relatively speaking.
that said, good chance getting it will not make one immune for life.
i think what possibly will happen, is the body will be better prepared to deal with it in subsequent acquisitions.
a 20 yr old today possibly will have had it multiple times by the time they are 40.
a 7 yr old, multiple times by the time they are 20.
time will tell how long immunity does last, and if people's immune systems as a whole do deal with it better in subsequent infections, but likely the older and more health challenged will still be more at risk of serious effects, even if not as at risk as olders are now who have never had it.
but we already know that youngers are basically immune from serious effects even now on the first go round, and olders aren't, and we need a strategy that takes that reality into account rather than one that pretends that reality isn't what it is, and doesn't take that reality into account. (like we and Sweden did).
843 US covid deaths total as of 6/17/2020 for those under 35,
2623 total for those under 45 yrs old,
and those numbers include all those under 35 or 45 who had pre existing health conditions, so possible those who didn't have pre existing conditions fared even better.
out of 103,339 total deaths for all ages. (yes, the CDC's numbers do lag behind a little, but the ratios are what matters in this discussion).
to not take such blatant differences in how covid affects olders vs youngers into account when planing going forward, would be beyond insane.
to not have a plan B while waiting for a miracle cure or treatment, would also be insane. (and i have more faith in an effective treatment being found, than a permanent safe vaccine).
in the mean time, we can't ask youngers who are effectively immune to give up their lives forever to protect the olders.
and youngers aren't standing for it now, but going back to normal life whether olders like it or not.
thus we need to separate the olders and youngers, at work and at play.
not a good plan, just better than the others.
on a side note, though an old fart, if i test positive for antibodies with a reliable test, i think it will affect how i live life going forward, even i do have a chance for re infection.
