There are many things we need to iron out so to speak. Firstly saying Asymptomatic transmission is the biggest problem , what is the basis of Gerts assertions, and how realistically can that be determined to translate to illness, asymptomatic for how long? To say asymptomatic people are infectious based on what evidence? The term can also describe healthy people, when healthy you have no symptoms of illness. If I went to Accident and emergency and said hi I have no symptoms but I might be infectious , I would diagnosed as insane. We also need to go back further these so called viruses have not been proven to exist ever. Mixtures of substances are carried out and then voila at the end the virus is pin pointed. If asymptomatic people are supposedly so infectious then take their bodily fluids and attempt to infect someone else. Yet we are told there is not enough Viral load to carry that out, yet they are allegedly so infectious? Scientists have to create hypothesis and that stems from theory to a degree and correlation, then disprove or prove yhe hypothesis, what they arent supposed to do is turn theories into unquestionable dogma. Its not complicated. To tell us its too complicated means they dont understand it themselves, it should not shut down debate. Herd immunity can never be achieved as each individuals blood, body state varies. People for example with contaminates like in Vaccines verses someone with non are going to respond differently. Herd immunity as a concept only uses correlation but Geert knocks down correlation when speaking of Vaccines and cronic illness he dismisses correlation. At least at minimim apply the same parameters.