You don’t seem to quite get the idea. “Herd immunity” is poorly named. It should actually be referred to as herd resistance.
If viruses didn’t mutate, a vaccine based approach would be equally effective to herd resistance. But they do mutate, very rapidly.
Those who were previously infected have a window where they can’t catch the disease again, AND after that window they tend to be less likely to catch the disease and are contagious for a shorter period of time.
This approach is superior to a vaccination based approach because vaccines only create immune response to a specific protein, whereas those exposed to a live virus gain immune response to ALL of the proteins in the virus.
The vaccine did buy time during the early stages of the pandemic when the strain was the most deadly. The optimal approach would have been to focus vaccination on those most at risk, isolate them from the general population, and wait for the virus to mutate to a much less deadly strain, with the recognition that everyone eventually gets exposed to some variant.
Hindsight is always 20/20, so at this point the main lesson is to plan accordingly for future pandemics.
Actually I do understand. My comment was more tongue in cheek since Atlas was a big proponent of herd immunity. Even resistance is probably a poor word. Simply because the virus is morphing & will continue to morph.
No, it didn't. It has since been shown to have a negative efficacy.
The deaths climbed after the Jim Jones Jab was foisted on the public.
...and it's not a vaccine, regardless of what the pharmaceutical korporations and the CDC changed their definition to.