Can not choose the right choice, first protect yourself!

The principle of statistics tells us: in this world, "black swan events" are everywhere.

Even if you're 99.9 percent ready, you've never been wrong in your life. But that 0.1% of the emergencies that are not under your control may still drain all the gains from doing the right thing.

This outbreak is a typical "black swan", some people messed up, some people do not know what to do, some people encounter a crisis.

But there were people who changed the track in time and quickly came out of the trough.

The difference in this is to see if a person has no vision.

For example, the same is unemployment, some people immediately fall apart, and some people have prepared "risk funds", can support for a period of time. Learn new skills and find new opportunities.

Since the outbreak, the global pharmaceutical industry and research teams have been involved in drug development: drugs such as Vedsey, known as "special effects", have received much attention, and vaccines are widely seen as humans' last hope of overcoming the new coronavirus. Previously, compared with the development of drugs for popular diseases such as cancer and cardiovascular disease, vaccine and antiviral drug development could be described as "cold" for pharmaceutical research, but as of May 11, 110 new crown vaccines had been developed in WHO records, 8 of which were in clinical trials. Under the influence of the epidemic, vaccine development has become a focus for a while.

Despite the involvement of many teams, the development of new crown vaccines and "special effects drugs" continues to escape the laws of the scientific and pharmaceutical industry, and it is not known when safe and effective vaccines will be developed successfully.

Remember that in March this year, the BRITISH proposal for "group immunity" caused a lot of controversy. For example, 245 British scientists have jointly published an open letter arguing that it is unreliable to resort to "group immunity"; Chen Qiming, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Oxford, said in an interview with Caijing that the British government's approach was "sometimes almost relentlessly rational and calm"; and some views on the Internet accused "group immunity" of being socially Darwinian and anti-humanitarian.

The concept was first proposed in the British government's press release, but they did have a bit of "near-relentless rational calm", so much so that the media and the general public's interpretation of the deviation, "group immunity" the scientific concept was kidnapped, into a "policy", into a "government inaction" synonymous.

In the absence of vaccines, the absence of special drugs, and the inability to completely isolate the source of infection, the basic principle of our fight against the epidemic is to try to "flatten the curve" and avoid running down medical resources, resulting in unnecessary deaths and other secondary crises. This is neither "social Darwinism" nor "group immunity".

On the contrary, it is precisely because of group immunity that the human community can effectively protect individuals who, for various reasons, are unable, or cannot, be immune through vaccination, etc.

Herd immune, also known as herb immunity, or community immunity, refers to the fact that when the population has enough people to be immune to pathogens, it can break the chain of infection that spreads the disease, protecting individuals who are not immune.

Of these, the proportion of people who have established immunity is very important.

If only a small number of people are immunized, the disease can still spread among people.

The spread of the disease is limited only if enough people are immunized (here limiting the spread of the disease refers to a macro-level phenomenon where, from an individual perspective, people who are not immune may still be infected because they are exposed to pathogens in a way).

As to what proportion of people to establish immunization to achieve group immunity, this is related to the infectious disease's infectious power, the more infectious, the higher the threshold for the establishment of group immunity.

I believe that the people who choose group immunization are the wrong choice, the facts also prove that this "group immunity" in the face of the new coronavirus has not worked at all!

In short, the current global epidemic prevention work is still adhered to, the global citizens are reluctant to accept the status quo, only hope that the vaccine can be developed early and successful. Until then, we still need to protect ourselves! to avoid infection!