[CamperBob2]

IANAD, but I'm sure there are some medical contraindications for certain individuals, such as people who are immunocompromised, that may legitimately keep them from being vaccinated. That's why achieving herd immunity is important, and my understanding is that we aren't quite there yet.

Never change, HN.

[kelnos]

Sure, but this thread is about an employer bringing everyone in for a luncheon. People who are not vaccinated for medical reasons should be taking responsibility for their health in these situations and declining to attend an event like this. (If the employer will count this absence against them despite their medical situation, that's a shitty employer that might be violating ADA laws.)

The issue is with the anti-vaxxer types (including people who won't get vaccinated for religious reasons) who seem to be more likely to attend an event like this without caring about their (or others') vaccination status.

I do believe it is true that everyone in the US who both wants and is able to medically tolerate a vaccine should have been able to get at least their first dose by now.

Regarding herd immunity, I'm honestly not expecting that to ever happen in the US. There are too many people who are skeptical of these vaccines, some for the regular disappointing anti-vax reasons, others who do have serious concerns and/or have been swayed by misinformation. The fact that states and municipalities are resorting to crazy incentives like cash lotteries and even stuff like trucks and guns for people to get vaccinated really illustrates how bad it is.

[sneak]

I read that something like 3-4% of the US might be immunocompromised, easily an order of magnitude higher than I would have initially guessed, which means that if you have a staff of 20, it’s possible that vaccines might not be effective when administered to one of them.

It’s not just antivaxxers who are at risk from in-person meetings.

[kelnos]

> I read that something like 3-4% of the US might be immunocompromised, easily an order of magnitude higher than I would have initially guessed

Wow, agreed, I would not have guessed that high a percentage.

> It’s not just antivaxxers who are at risk from in-person meetings.

Right, and I explicitly said that I would hope people with medical conditions would decline these kinds of in-person meetings if they weren't comfortable with them just yet.

[irq11]

Herd immunity is not a fixed vaccination percentage pulled from Anthony Fauci’s latest media appearance. It’s the immunity level at which cases stabilize and begin to decline. It is defined by observation.

Cases are at all-time lows in the most vaccinated locations, and are dropping rapidly nationwide.

[CamperBob2]

No, it's the level at which people not eligible for vaccination are no longer at risk because most of their peers are incapable of spreading the disease. The political aspects are just some stuff some people made up.

[irq11]

No, it’s a scientific term. It has a definition. Not just something you’ve made up based on your feelings.

Herd immunity is when Rt = 1, or 1 - 1/R0

It is the point when infections begin to decline due to acquired immunity.

https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/set-c/set-c...