- Position‹3 of 4›
- Herd immunity is a risky bet
- Argument‹2 of 2
Herd immunity is risky because the virus could mutate
Just like any other virus, the coronavirus could mutate and become deadlier than it already is.
The argument
Viruses can mutate. As a host’s body starts to fight the virus, it adapts to changes to its environment, such as changing its surface proteins. Mutated viruses bring new and sometimes more severe symptoms. If the coronavirus mutated to withstand the human body’s efforts to get rid of it, then herd immunity would not be effective.
Premises
[P1]Viruses mutate as a host's body fights them, adapting by changing features such as their surface proteins.
[P2] These mutations can produce new and sometimes more severe symptoms and may let the virus withstand immune defences people have already built up.
[P3] If the coronavirus mutated in this way, the immunity behind herd immunity would no longer protect against it.
[C] Therefore, because the virus could mutate, herd immunity is a risky bet.
Counter-arguments
The chances of the coronavirus mutating are slim. For a virus to evolve, there would need to be several mutations that give the virus an overall environmental advantage. Therefore, there is no need to worry about the effectiveness of herd immunity.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] Viruses rarely have enough mutations to evolve.