e'll get as many as we need. I think we'll be fine there.

Here's my math question for you. And I asked this this morning. I got a number of answers and I'm still not sure of my opinion on it. So help me form an opinion on it. It goes like this. If we had a normal virus that affected everybody about the same way every age group, then we're told that getting to 60, 70 percent herd immunity with vaccinations or prior infections, that getting there would be enough to stop the spread.

But what if you've got a weird virus that has a special characteristic that attacks let's say 20% of the population aggressively and 80% of the population hardly bothers them at all? What happens if you can vaccinate almost all of that 20%? Well it won't stop the infection from spreading through the other 80%. Of course. And that other 80%, if they came in contact with the few people who didn't have it yet in the high risk group, then those people could get it and die.

But here's the question. I'm just trying to think the logical math of it through. I do understand there's something—Andres Backhouse said this morning on Twitter that the rate of infection where it's been studied seems to be fairly similar with every age group. I didn't know that until this morning. So you can get infected at every age group, which suggests that my idea doesn't make sense. That if everybody's getting infected it's at least in that one sense it's like every other virus. It's just the outcomes are different, not the infection rate.

So but I haven't given up yet. I feel as if just to help me think this through, because there are really too many variables here to quite grasp it, but my gut level statistical intuition, which is very unreliable, tells me that if you vaccinate let's say 80% of the high risk people—they tend to hang out with themselves, don't they? Senior citizens are far more likely to have extended contact with other senior citizens. They do have family contacts, etc. But and then kids mostly hang around with kids.

And under that scenario couldn't you not have herd immunity in the classic sense where the virus just stops, but in a functional sense where once you've got the high risk people done and the low risk people are still getting infected but you don't care because they're not getting any bad outcomes? Don't you sort of reach something that's like a virtual herd effect except plenty of people are still getting infected? It's just they're not dying.

So when we talk about herd immunity from a regular virus we're talking about the virus just stopping. It just can't spread. It just stops. But maybe when we talk about herd immunity for this one what we should really be talking about is bringing the rate of risk down to whatever is a baseline normal risk of life. And I feel like we're going to hit that really soon. That's my statistical slash math intuition, that we're going to hit it really soon. Like way before May. I'm thinking April hospitalizations will be almost nothing. But the spread will still be widespread because the kids will still be giving it to kids, etc. It just won't—we won't know about it.

So I am not convinced that I'm right there.

And let me make another point about your skill stacks. When I advise you to add additional talents to what you already have to make your stack of talents—your talent stack, as I like to say—is special. Statistics is