Even though I'm young and relatively healthy, I'm not interested in acquiring the virus in the service of "herd immunity". Especially after hearing reports of it causing lung and organ damage even in asymptomatic patients. Please count me out.

Latest studies also indicate potential brain damage:

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200622-the-long-term-ef...

So definitely not something to get infected with, especially as it is still not clear if surviving an infection gives you immunity.

If it does not - you might get infected repeatedly until it "rolls the dice" just "right" and damages your health and possibly even kills you...

nothing has proven that you can get infected repeatedly, but also nothing has proven that it won't mutate every year like the flu does.

If this is your country's strategy then good luck (and it is the US strategy), but you can always try to avoid it as much as possible until enough people have caught it.

Never understood the point of herd immunity through deliberate infection with a potentially deadly disorder. I mean what the point of getting sick now, instead of later. I can kinda get a point that second could be potentially deadlier, but what if it never happens? SARS-CoV from 2003 never gave a second wave.

A lot of people argue that SARS-CoV-2 is more contagious and less fatal than first thought, without realizing that that means that herd immunity is even more difficult to achieve. The more contagious a virus is, the harder it is to achieve herd immunity.

> but what if it never happens

The problem is that if covid doesn't kill you, stopping the economy will (or at least will make it worse for a large part of the population).

There might be a right trade-off of making heavy use of masks and preventative measures, but this is not currently the implied strategy of the government (as masks are not really enforced).

The difference with SARS-CoV-1 from 2002-2004 was that symptoms were much more aggressive and quick, and thus it was much more easy to trace and quarantine people. With the current one we have a mix of issues: lots of asymptomatic people or symptoms take time to develop.

Still do not understand the point of "herd immunity" Swedish way. Pointless to me. What it is supposed to protect from? From the disease you are supposed to get sick with to acquire that immunity at first place?

Its to avoid economic shutdown. Its to protect people from economic disaster.

Why would you call it, hypocritically herd immunity then? It should be called sacrifice of weak, that woul be honest. Anyways, Sweden did not fare economically any better than Austria, Norway or New Zealand.

Who said anything about sacrificing the weak?

herd immunity is not about everyone catching it, it's about enough people catching it and getting immune, that the virus can't spread anymore.

unfortunately that's the current implied strategy, that people like it or not.