User talk:Herd Immunity
|
A lengthy welcome[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. I've added a welcome message to the top of this page that gives a great deal of information about Wikipedia. I hope you find it useful.
Additionally, I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily.
Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.
If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.
Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.
If you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable.
I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of User:Herd Immunity[edit]
Please do not create hoaxes on Wikipedia, as you did at User:Herd Immunity. Doing so is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia—and then to correct them if possible. If you would like to make test edits, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
User page deletion[edit]
Sure there is a lot of controversy over covid-19 and what to do about it, like herd immunity, but there is no excuse for the page being just deleted, nor is there nay excuse for calling it a "hoax". I hardly remember the details of what I was objecting to in the discussion, but I can assure you I had spend days researching covid-19, quarantines, locks downs, herd immunity, etc., and I am not wrong, and what I wrote was no hoax. I can easily substantiate any argument I made. But it appears to be too late as a draconian deletion made it all history. That is totally unacceptable in any scientific or responsible circle. It was not like I was publishing, but merely adding perspective to the off line discussion. You can be sure wiki will get no further contributions from me. 02:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a web host or a social media site. User page content should be related to Wikipedia; your user page is not your blog. In hindsight, I should have cited this reason when requesting the deletion of your page. However, your user page represented a common misunderstanding of the concept of herd immunity, which is about vaccination, not allowing the virus to spread. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 23:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
It was totally wrong to delete the page that was trying to fix wiki's mistake.
You simply are WRONG, and therefore are publishing false information as if it were real.
That totally destroys the credibility of Wiki.
Herd immunity most definitely is NOT about vaccination.
Vaccination also depends upon herd immunity because you can not vaccinate all people, but herd immunity is about any situation where you end or prevent an epidemic without having to have 100% of the population being immune.
Sorry, but your opinion is about the most ignorant and inappropriate response I have ever seen.
You should have at least learned something about herd immunity before unilaterally acting out of total and complete ignorance.
You should also spend more time on blogs.
They use dialectic to search for the truth, something you should consider learning about.
71.228.122.167 (talk) 00:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- The best way to "fix wiki's mistake" is by discussing changes on articles’ talk pages. Please read our user page guidelines to find out what is and is not appropriate to put on your user page. I can assure you that I have read a lot of blogs, and that I am familiar with how they work.
- Wikipedia's page on herd immunity acknowledges the role that previous infections can play in herd immunity in the case of some outbreaks, but in the case of COVID-19, people who have previously gotten the disease can contract it again in the future, so it's unrealistic to try for herd immunity before a vaccine is available. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
I was discussing Wiki's mistake on the appropriate talk page, and that was also deleted inappropriately. Moderation is fine, but ignorant censorship is totally inappropriate, especially since hundred of thousands of people are dying. And no, you clearly have not read the wiki page on herd immunity that also correctly recognizes that most people likely already have inherent immunity to pathogens like covid-19. And of COURSE all people who are immune can always get reinfected. Immunity is not magic. It just means your immune system is so efficient that you are asymptomatic. So anyone claiming herd immunity is unrealistic before a vaccine, is totally ignorant of how ANY epidemic works. Reinfection had NOTHING to do with why Fauci was wrong about herd immunity. He claimed it was a bad idea because he calculated 4 million would to die in order to achieve 67% with acquired immunity. He made 3 main mistakes.
1. His first mistake was that he calculated lethality of covid-19 based on the number who died and the number of people testing positive. Which er now know is wrong because 90% of the people infected were not getting tested because they were asymptomatic. So he was estimating lethality at least 10 times too high.
2. His second mistake was assuming a novel virus would not have any inherent immunity and all 67% would need to acquire it through infection and recovery. That clearly is false because not only are children inherently immune, but so are all those 90% infected who were asymptomatic. Look at the numbers. Only about 100 of the 225,000 dead in the US are children. That is not due to lack of infection. So he was estimating the number of people needing to acquire infection at least 7 times higher than actually needed.
3. His third mistake is that you don't achieve herd immunity by just letting it randomly happening. The whole point of herd immunity is that you can and should protect the vulnerable. So then you deliberately infect or encourage infection of the young who are NOT vulnerable. Almost all the deaths are elderly, and it turns out those under 30 are about 40 times LESS likely to die than the average, which is based almost entirely on the vulnerable elderly dying.
So combining the mistakes, with a factor of 10 x 7 x 40, and you get a total error factor of 2,800. If that is true, and I am sure it is, then instead of 4 million dead from achieving herd immunity, you get more like 1,500 dead. Since it may take more than a month to kill off the virus and some elderly would still likely get infected and die, you could round that up to even 4,000, and it would still be 1000 times better than Dr. Fauci's mistaken estimate.
I can substantiate this with lots of links, but of course it is speculative and there is disagreement, but far too many places Wiki is being totally irresponsible by making out right ridiculous statements, like "people who have previously contracted the disease can get infected again, thus preventing herd immunity". Getting infected again does NOT at all prevent herd immunity because they will not allow it to reproduce to the point they shed and are contagious. All people can get re-infected by any disease they are immune to. Immunity can never mean you can't get infected. It just means it can't reproduce significantly.
I am getting extremely tired of misinformed and ignorant people who are essentially party to mass murder.
Herd Immunity (talk) 02:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)