[fitkoh]

Unfortunately I can't subscribe to this simplistic way of thinking on serious biological mechanisms; This way of thinking has some eugenic tendencies that have been tried from mid 19th century Europe (when the Darwinian concept of Evolution by the means of Natural Selection re-flourished) till way into the 50s in the US.

I would argue that simplicity within a complex system is not sufficient reason to declare an idea as unsound or foolish. It IS a valid reason to question such an idea, but NOT to dismiss it. I would also say that it isn't necessarily a misfortune that you can't subscribe to my way of thinking: it's a personal decision; and it makes the world more diverse. I enjoy diversity. Thank you for being you.

I tend to agree with you that this concept bears more than a vague resemblance to eugenics - a practice I would find very distasteful. I prefer to believe that each person has a right and responsibility to direct their own healthcare and development: a basic, fundamental human right that is impossible if/when a vaccine is mandated. What I am against is mandates that limit/destroy personal freedom or basic, fundamental human rights: Social distancing, mask requirements, and vaccines could possibly be very beneficial to the human population in defeating this "pandemic" - but that POSSIBILITY comes with a GUARANTEED loss of liberty. For me, the price is too high.

What I would like to see from the medical community is a better job of identifying persons which NEED a vaccine or other treatment rather than making blanket policies that everyone has to abide by. I cannot see the logic in inoculating an entire population when the recovery rate is over 99%, if for no other reason than the huge cost. I realize that the doctors, hospitals, the pharmaceutical industry stand to make a huge profit when inoculating 100% as opposed to inoculating 10% in a high risk category, but that is not sufficient cause for me to surrender my right to consent to treatment, nor is it justification to artificially alter the immune response of the entire human population.

The point I'm trying to make here is that the genetics of the Immune system (as is the case of any physiological system taken as a whole) is far too complex to fathom as 1 block let alone to project its evolution over time inside human populations given some arbitrary selection pressure...

If your point is valid, how can any serious scientist in the bioscience field assert that a vaccine is the only way we'll ever acquire herd immunity to the current pandemic? A vaccine is only 1 factor in the human immune system. Sure, you can give weight to the argument with statistics, but statistics aren't proof. You can monitor the development of antibodies in a persons bloodstream, but it may not be wise to assume it will affect every person the same way or assume that artificially stimulated antibody development won't have any negative side effects in subsequent generations simply because there is no evidence to support that idea. If it is unreasonable for me to suggest that vaccines may have detrimental long term side effects in the vigor/responsiveness in the human immune system because of lack of evidence and failure to consider other factors I submit it's equally unreasonable to state that vaccines will improve the long term vigor/responsiveness in the human immune system for the same reasons, or to state that a vaccine is needed by everyone. 

While a complex system may have numerous forces acting upon it, seemingly small, insignificant, simple forces can have a profound  effect. The double-slit experiment is one example. While a single metric may not be adequate to form a reasonable projection, I believe it's sufficient to theorize on potential possibilities.

I would also assert that the scientific method has great value as a tool for acquiring knowledge, but it is not perfect. It should not be accepted without question. It has been my experience that doctors and other scientists have a habit of dismissing ideas which are unproven or do not fit into the current scientific paradigm. A lack of proof, in my opinion, is not enough to discredit an idea. At one time it was widely accepted that the earth was the center of the solar system: and Galileo was imprisoned for suggesting otherwise. Theres an inherent weakness/human bias in the scientific method that (generally) persons testing a theory will seek to test and prove ideas which they believe in and to disprove ideas which they don't believe in. What this means to me is  ideas that fit into the current widely accepted scientific model are more likely to be researched/developed/expanded upon than ideas which do not fit into the current widely accepted scientific model are less likely to be learned or given serious consideration, regardless of their factual validity perceived or otherwise.

Obviously, there is a misunderstanding given that I wasn't specific enough when I mentioned :

... by which I meant the Wild life that once was isolated in its own remote and inaccessible ecosystem but, because of the deforestation and the ever-expanding effort of the Big Capital at scrambling every bit of resource everywhere it can.. Human-beings and the Wild-life are coming in contact once again in many regions of the World, including Africa, China, Brazil etc.. and when they do zoonosis HAPPEN, think of Ebola epidemics for Africa and The SARS-1 and 2 and may be 3/4/5.. in China etc...

I think I understand this perfectly; I just don't agree 100%. I tend to believe that the population density is the primary threat. Human beings have been expanding into new ecosystems since before recorded history, but it's only very recently that a point of expansion has been in contact with a dense population area (millions of people in a municipality). I would argue that there is a direct correlation between population density and the frequencies with which pandemic/epidemics occur. While zoonosis is possible any time a person/group explores an undeveloped area with unfamiliar wild-life, I don't believe it would be nearly as likely to reach epidemic proportions if people weren't packed into cities like sardines in a tin.

Fortunately  we are all free to disagree, and personally I appreciate the opportunity to examine alternate perspectives even if I don't happen to agree with them.