I'm looking more to gain something from you and anyone else reading and gain something from discussing the paper than anything else, since you and others here likely know a lot about this. My apologies if I came off as combative to you, which isn't my intention: I realize I have a dry-toned style. However, the integrity of research like herd immunity is maintained by scrunity, namely peer-review, which this paper is missing. I think it's not wise to simply take the conclusions of the argument unquestioned. I've learned this the hard way after getting my own papers scrutinized in the process in my tiny slice of the pie. I think I can learn something here if you're willing to discuss it since no one has the entire pie.