Is herd immunity the best way to beat coronavirus?

Herd immunity should not be a strategy when there is no vaccine

Question: Is herd immunity the best way to beat coronavirus?
Position‹4 of 4: Herd immunity is irrelevant
Argument‹2 of 2: Herd immunity should not be a strategy when there is no vaccine

Vaccines are an important part of stopping viruses and illnesses. Making a coronavirus vaccine is more important than herd immunity.

The argument

Vaccines are essential for stopping illnesses. An immunized individual is less likely to be a source of infection to others. For a disease with no vaccine, like COVID-19, natural herd immunity would put the responsibility of stopping viral spreading up for chance. Vaccines are not made to give severe symptoms to the receiver. Without severe symptoms, people like the elderly or others with health issues could gain immunity without risking their lives. Therefore, making vaccines should be the main plan to stop coronavirus, not herd immunity.

Premises

[P1]Vaccines stop illnesses by immunizing individuals without exposing them to severe symptoms, making even vulnerable people safe to immunize. [P2] Natural herd immunity without a vaccine leaves the spread of disease and the protection of vulnerable people up to chance and serious risk. [C] Therefore, herd immunity should not be the strategy against coronavirus; developing a vaccine should be.

Counter-arguments

The public should not wait on vaccines when immunity can be achieved now. Vaccines take time to make. Scientists need to isolate the genes of the virus, develop a test ready solution, and use it on a large number of individuals. All of that takes time. If the first round of tests fail, the the scientists have to start over again. While they are developing a vaccine, it would be best to get as many people immune as possible.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Some viruses don’t have a vaccine. [Rejecting P4] Herd immunity has worked well in the past.