Will Continued Social Distancing Ultimately Destroy All Human Life on this Planet?

Although well intentioned, our current social distancing policies are having an opposite effect; the virus is only getting worse, not better. We are fast approaching a point of no return.

Social distancing is the reason why things aren't worse than they are. The reason why the situation is so bad is because people have been flouting social distancing regulations.

HiMadFool, I agree that we need more and better social distancing of our vulnerable population. BUT social distancing the healthy population is counter productive and if we keep it up, then we are all doomed. To better understand this point, read the analogy that I gave.

LuckyR:A couple of things. First the current mutations are covered quite nicely by the vaccines. Secondly, the difference in hospitalization rate between those over 80 and those between 40 and 79 is about 3 to 1. So younger folks are not as "immune" as your analogies (?) imply. At the same time, the total number of those 40 to 79 is much higher (140 million vs 10 million).

LuckyR:Basically we are going to get to herd immunity. You get there through a combo of exposure to illness and vaccination.

But if we keep these people, or continue to keep and hide away our healthy (those that are immune via infection (with healthy immune systems) or via vaccination) socially isolated, then we have accomplished nothing.

baker:In the case of covid, the point of social distancing is to slow down the infection rate, so that the medical system doesn't collapse.

baker:Secondly, who exactly are "the healthy"? If you look at obesity and diabetes rates (two major risks for covid complications), the healthy are actually a relatively small group.

I know, I know… your first thought after reading this title is “Wow Roger, now you’ve really lost your mind!”. But humor me a bit and take a look at this analogy first

We fail to recognize that intentionally holding the healthy population (those with strong immune systems) on this planet from an infection means that the infection will grow and mutate unabated.

Government experts are quick to reject those that say we should allow the healthy cars to speed up and run free (i.e., implement “strategic herd immunity”) as being misinformed quacks

But I suspect most school age kids and young adults are healthy enough to take off their masks and immediately begin large scale socialization (activities).

Roger Gregoire:But I suspect most school age kids and young adults are healthy enough to take off their masks and immediately begin large scale socialization (activities).

baker:And then infect the vulnerable.

Jack Cummins:In South London, during a previous time in between lockdowns, I saw on many occasions groups of school pupils, and they looked about 16 years old at least, crowding onto busses and inside shops and not a mask in sight. At this time, which was before the time of the new strain of the virus, so many people were wondering why the infection rate was rising tremendously and I believe this was a large part of the problem.

But of course, it would be wrong to just blame the school children. Also, a lot of adults were not sticking to rules and I also believe that people having to live in overcrowded living conditions was and still is a stumbling block in enabling people to socially distance to bringing the infection rate down properly.

unenlightened:...and enough of us will flout the rules to keep the population growing.

LuckyR:Unfortunately other than age trends, it is difficult to categorize immune system strength before illness. I agree with you about the recovered and the vaccinated, scientifically, but psychologically it would lead to a two tiered system in a situation that is already tribalistic, so I agree that it is more practical to continue as we are doing until hospitalization numbers drop.

LuckyR:Several things: first, we don't need to "kill" viruses, we just need to deprive them of hosts.Thus viruses don't need to be "attack"ed. That's the value of social distancing.

LuckyR:Your first statement is self-contradictory, since the "vulnerable" population IS the "healthy" population.

SophistiCat, it seems that you view healthy people (those with strong immune systems) more as "spreaders" of the virus than as "removers" of the virus

LuckyR:Vulnerable means: can get the disease. Invulnerable is synonymous with immune, the vaccinated plus the recovered.

LuckyR:Social distancing is a crutch while we wait for the vaccine to solve the problem, so neither of us thinks it is the solution.

Roger Gregoire:SophistiCat, it seems that you view healthy people (those with strong immune systems) more as "spreaders" of the virus than as "removers" of the virus.

SophistiCat:People aren't "removers" of the virus.

SophistiCat:Once it is out of its host, a virus dies on its own if it doesn't find a new host, which is nearly always.

SophistiCat:If a virus succeeds in infecting a new host, even someone who for whatever reason doesn't show symptoms (it's more complicated than just having a healthy immune system), that by definition means that the virus is reproducing - increasing the probability of its further transmission (asymptomatic carriers are infectious) and of new mutations arising.

SophistiCat:You need to stop thinking in terms of analogies and think about the real situation, which isn't so complicated that one cannot understand it otherwise. We are all, hopefully, familiar with the basics of the germ theory of disease. And educate yourself a little before pontificating on this topic.

Jack Cummins:One matter which I think has not been addressed by policy makers is whether social distancing is really stopping the virus? In particular, today I heard of one person I know who has tested positive and she not been out or mixed with any other people in ages. She thinks that she must have contracted it through food delivered outside the door. So, it is questionable whether the virus is just about human transmission through contact with others or other sources, such as food.

Jack Cummins:At the heart of it all, there is just no possible end in sight. I plan to get the vaccine whenever I am able but felt so miserable reading in the news yesterday that the vaccine will not bring any end to social distancing. The news article even sugges ted that the vaccine program might be a bad thing because it might mean that people stop thinking that they need to distance any longer. With the current approach of policy makers it is hard to see any hope for a way out of the situation. Is it any wonder that people are feeling depressed and unwell mentally?

Don't healthy immune systems attack and kill invading viruses?

For the most part, healthy immune systems don't replicate and spread the virus, ...they attack and kill it.

No offense SophistiCat, but the purpose of the analogies is to put a rational perspective on this whole situation. Right now, the general public is being fed misinformation in the form of "fear mongering" which is only making a bad situation much, much worse.

One matter which I think has not been addressed by policy makers is whether social distancing is really stopping the virus?

She thinks that she must have contracted it through food delivered outside the door.

I plan to get the vaccine whenever I am able but felt so miserable reading in the news yesterday that the vaccine will not bring any end to social distancing.

SophistiCat:You are bone-ignorant about science and public policy, you can't formulate a sound argument to save your life, and yet you presume to advise experts and decision-makers. Normally I just ignore internet cranks, but I make an exception here, because bozos like you spread disinformation that does real harm.

Just a piece of friendly advice here (if you wish to accept it)... be careful with the ad hominen attacks (the casting of insults). To many of us that value debate and discussion, when someone resorts to insults, it is an indicator of defeat; it is a big white flag; it means that they've lost the argument and they have nothing more rational to argue with.

Echarmion:If literally everyone stayed in their house for two weeks, the virus would die out. Obviously, this isn't very practical. So we're left with less effective measures.

Echarmion:For example, you conspicuously ignored all the objective points raised.

Remember, all this started with one person on this planet; with just singular infection (in Wuhan China).

Roger Gregoire:Remember, all this started with one person on this planet; with just a singular infection (in Wuhan China).

Echarmion:And yet it appears that China, along with some other countries, does have the virus under control, so apparently it is possible.

Herd immunity, and specifically "strategic herd immunity" is the ONLY solution we have.

Everyone is aiming for eventual herd immunity. You just somehow seem to be of the opinion that it is better to have a few million people die to the virus quickly then much fewer people over a longer period of time.

Who are these "few million people"? Healthy people (those with strong immune systems with no underlying conditions that are susceptible to the ill effects of covid) in virtually all cases don't die from covid.- Look at the scientific empirical evidence/data. And stop listening the the "fear mongering" media.

Echarmion:People without strong immune systems are still people, are they not?

And contrary to the fear mongering news, healthy people in general don't die of covid, but yet we are preventing these healthy people from acquiring herd immunity that could ultimately save many millions more from dying. Go figure.

Echarmion:Acquiring herd immunity by being infected by the actual virus (as opposed to a vaccine) does not save people from dying.

Echarmion:...the general rule is that the more people that are infected, the more will die.

1. Vulnerable people die from covid
2. Healthy people gain immunity from covid.
3. Herd immunity: the more healthy immune people out in society creates a greater protective effect to the vulnerable (i.e. the less deaths of vulnerable people).

This is not correct. We can achieve herd immunity through infection, vaccination, and/or the combination of both.

Not quite.
1. Vulnerable people die from covid
2. Healthy people gain immunity from covid.
3. Herd immunity: the more healthy immune people out in society creates a greater protective effect to the vulnerable (i.e. the less deaths of vulnerable people).

Echarmion:Significant herd protection requires probably at least 60% of the population to be immune. I trust you can make your own calculation, based on current death rates, as to what it would mean to get there.

You are falsely confusing the "threshold value" as the starting point of protection. Herd immunity is not like a light switch that starts protecting when we reach this value. The 'threshold value' is just the theoretical point where the virus stops spreading altogether. We don't have to wait til we get 60% to get protection. One healthy person by himself provides some level of protection. And the more, the merrier.

For example, imagine a very deep swimming pool that can hold up to 100 people. If 60 healthy good swimmers were equally scattered in the pool, then it is guaranteed that if a vulnerable non-swimmer fell in, that there would always be a healthy swimmer close enough to prevent the vulnerable non-swimmer from drowning.

Now imagine that authorities tell everyone (both healthy and vulnerable) to get out of the pool for fear that a non-swimmer might drown if he falls in. So now when a non-swimmer accidentally falls in, there is no one there to save him; he has 0% chance of survival. And if there were 1 healthy swimmer in the pool when this poor non-swimmer fell in then there would be a chance that this non-swimmer could have been saved. And if there were 2 healthy swimmers in this pool, then this doubles the chance the non-swimmer could be saved, and the more healthy swimmers in the pool the more likely the non-swimmer could be saved, until we reach 60 healthy swimmers, then we have 100% (theoretical) certainty that no non-swimmer could ever drown.

InPitzotl:For discussion purposes only, I'll oversimplify. Let's say everyone is either healthy, or vulnerable.

InPitzotl:I'll grant 1 and 2 literally; vulnerable people who get sick die, and healthy people who get sick become immune. Unstated, for simplicity, let's presume that everyone who is vaccinated becomes immune.

InPitzotl:But here's how the mechanics work. Everyone starts out uninfected, call that state (A). They can become infected, state (B), if exposed to a carrier.

InPitzotl:A carrier is essentially another person in state (B).

Echarmion:I'm just still confused how you think exposing more people to the virus somehow leads to less deaths overall.

Will Continued Social Distancing Ultimately Destroy All Human Life on this Planet?

Of course it will. reproduction demands a certain intimacy, and without reproduction, human life will of course come to an end. But the bad news is that we are not all total wankers, and enough of us will flout the rules to keep the population growing.

It is the healthy people that we "expose" to the virus, NOT the vulnerable. This is commonly referred to as "strategic herd immunity". And from an overly simplistic view, the logic goes like this:

Technically people don't get the virus directly from another person (unless maybe they were french kissing and they swap spit), they get the virus from being in a contaminated environment, as illustrated in the analogy as being the tacks on the highway.

2. Cars with good tire tread crush tacks (kill covid virus) and get stronger when on the highway (out in society).

State B - All cars can be infected with tacks, if exposed to tacks on the highway.

Echarmion:Exposing healthy people automatically also exposes vulnerable people.

InPitzotl:The only way your contaminated environment can get contaminated is by putting viruses into that environment, and that requires the viruses to exist. Viruses are only made by virus factories, and whereas viruses don't reproduce on their own, the only type of virus factory is a carrier.

InPitzotl:Imagine that I have viruses everywhere on my feet and hands, and all over my clothes; i.e., my car has tacks all over it. I take off my clothes and wash them, wash my hands and feet, and in this scenario just happen to not get infected. Then I'm never in state B. The fact that the virus was all over my body is irrelevant; since I'm never infected by them, those viruses may as well be in China.

InPitzotl:And just to be crystal clear, the degree that talking about tack-locks converting cars without the fitting tack-key converts tack-lock-infested cars into tack factories that leak out the tacks sounds like a silly mental image, is precisely the degree to which your analogy is misleading.

The car analogy fits perfect. You may have the virus all over your body (as with tacks all over the good tread of tires), but once the virus finds a host, i.e. gets into your respiratory system (within the soft bald section of the tire) then replication begins.

So then do you agree that vulnerable people shed more than immune people? ...right?

relatively speaking, vulnerable people are 'Contributors' and immune people are 'Removers', ...right?

Firstly, vulnerable people catch the virus by exposing themselves to contaminated environments and surfaces (and not necessarily 'directly' from other people).

For the most part, people with healthy immune systems don't replicate and shed the virus, ...they attack and kill it!

1. The healthier the immune system, the more it kills the virus, and the less it spreads it (as there is naturally less (or none) to spread). Healthy people are the 'Removers' of virus contamination.

2. The weaker the immune system, the less it kills the virus, and the more it spreads (as the virus replicates itself it becomes easier and more of it to spread). Vulnerable people are the 'Contributors' of virus contamination.

InPitzotl:You're making this sound like healthy people clean up the environment, but it doesn't really work like that.

InPitzotl:Imagine a contaminated gas station, and let's just say that our goal is to decontaminate it. The best case scenario for healthy persons to decontaminate the gas station would require them to go in and literally rub their bodies against all surfaces; and even that wouldn't really be all that effective... you'd do far better just breaking out a sponge and soapy water, which would actually work pretty well for the decontamination, than you could hope to do by exploiting this healthy human. Possibly you'd do better in your sanitation using a lint roller than your immune human.

InPitzotl:Vulnerable versus healthy makes no difference. Contributors are infected people, whether healthy or vulnerable.

Roger Gregoire:Firstly, vulnerable people catch the virus by exposing themselves to contaminated environments and surfaces (and not necessarily 'directly' from other people).

Echarmion:How do you know this? What research has been done on direct Vs indirect exposure?

Yes, healthy immune people "clean up" (kill the virus; stop the spread of) covid-19 contamination. If this were not true, then herd immunity would be impossible.

Where the healthy immune human may be more efficient at decontaminating, is through breathing in air borne viruses. Basically the healthy immune human is an air filtration system, breathing in virus contaminated air, and expelling less virus than they take in. Continual breathing one breath after another will slowly filter (remove) virus from the air.

Healthy immune systems allow less total virus replication, which thereby means LESS to spread.

Where the healthy immune human may be more efficient at decontaminating, is through breathing in air borne viruses. Basically the healthy immune human is an air filtration system, breathing in virus contaminated air, and expelling less virus than they take in. Continual breathing one breath after another will slowly filter (remove) virus from the air.

Healthy immune systems allow less total virus replication, which thereby means LESS to spread.
Weak immune systems allow more total virus replication, which thereby means MORE to spread.

Echarmion:Immune people will "kill" whatever virus enters their system, but obviously this doesn't mean that they don't infect vulnerable people before they are immune.

Echarmion:And the reason herd immunity works is not that immune people actively remove the contagion, they just don't actively spread it.

Echarmion:A healthy immune system will not stop the virus from reproducing and spreading.

InPitzotl:Okay, so let's focus on the air path then. Your theory is that human breathing works as an air filter; but the contact thing is still true. Respiratory viruses (of which this is one) infect people by physically contacting those nice wet warm surfaces inside our lungs.

InPitzotl:So let's visualize how this works by something easier to imagine... visible smoke. Smoke is just smoke particles suspended in air, and just like those viruses would stick on your nice wet warm alveoli, smoke particles would also stick to those (analogously we could talk about how breathing in carcinogenic smoke can cause lung cancer in this manner, but that's unnecessary, other than to demonstrate the validity of this analogy). So your healthy human can only clean up viruses by breathing the same manner that any breathing human can clean up the smoke from the room by breathing, since it's essentially the same exact kind of contact in both scenarios, with more or less the same effect (particles getting stuck to aveoli; be they smoke particles or viruses).

InPitzotl:I think you can see where I'm going here. The analogous situation is that you're going to clear out a smoke filled room by sending humans inside it to breathe. That will indeed clear the smoke, a trivial amount, but it's way below the level of even simply opening a window.

Roger Gregoire:Healthy immune systems allow less total virus replication, which thereby means LESS to spread.
Weak immune systems allow more total virus replication, which thereby means MORE to spread.

InPitzotl:But you're comparing irrelevant factors. Let H(B) be the amount of viruses produced by a healthy infected person; and V(B) be the amount produced by a vulnerable infected person. If there are h healthy people infected and v vulnerable infected, then we have as a baseline h*H(B)+v*V(B) viruses produced.

2. If you want to stop the covid virus, then use healthy immune people.

Absolutely False.

Roger Gregoire:If you want to stop the covid virus, then use healthy immune people.

Echarmion:How do you suppose we get immune people? That's the whole point of the vaccination drive.

Echarmion:A healthy immune system will not stop the virus from reproducing and spreading.

Roger Gregoire:Absolutely False.

Echarmion:I think I am going to trust actual scientists over your opinion on this.

Echarmion and InPitzotl do you agree or disagree with this overly simplistic logic?

Your P2 and P3 are false, thereby making your conclusion unsound (logically flawed).

Science tells us healthy immune systems destroy infected cells (via white blood cells; leukocytes) and prevent virus replications (via interferon proteins).

Echarmion:Viruses which are unable to reproduce in the face of a healthy immune system will die out. It's the successful viruses we need to worry about.

If we don't let our healthy population engage in mask-less social activities very soon (within the next month or two), we will reach the point-of-no-return. This is the point where the virus growth exceeds man's ability to stop this growth.

Keeping firefighters away from a fire does not stop the fire, it only allows the fire to grow.

Keeping white blood cells away from an infection does stop the infection, ...it only insures certain death to the body.

Roger Gregoire:If we don't let our healthy population engage in mask-less social activities very soon (within the next month or two), we will reach the point-of-no-return. This is the point where the virus growth exceeds man's ability to stop this growth.

InPitzotl:Roger, you're literally saying that if we don't increase the virus growth, then the virus growth will increase out of control. That goes against all logic, common sense, and science.

Roger Gregoire:Keeping firefighters away from a fire does not stop the fire, it only allows the fire to grow.

InPitzotl:But you're saying, we need to prevent burning the forest down, so let's make the fire spread more.

Roger Gregoire:Keeping white blood cells away from an infection does stop the infection, ...it only insures certain death to the body.

InPitzotl:What? No! If you aren't infected, you don't die from infection.

InPitzotl:Infections are the problem. More infections means more deaths.

This is an analogy. In other words, no reputable doctor would ever recommend you fight an infection by keeping your white blood cells away from a bodily infection.

In other words, no reputable doctor would ever recommend you fight an infection by keeping your white blood cells away from a bodily infection. And likewise, no reputable scientist would recommend we fight an infection to a segment of this planet, by keeping the healthy segment away from the infection.

Correct! ...and how do you stop an infection???

do you keep your "healthy" cells; white blood cells away from it?

I think that there are a lot of hidden aspects of life not being addressed under the guise of the importance of social distancing. One major aspect is that the whole notion of some people being more vulnerable to the virus is being used to make everyone feel guilty about being allowed to do absolutely anything at all.

There are concerns that the vaccine is not as effective as previously thought. I believe that it is highly unlikely that the pandemic will end for the next couple of years, at least.

There are many thousands of worldwide top scientists and medical experts (e.g. such as those that have signed the Great Barrington Declaration) that see the same logical error and catastrophic results (that I illustrate in this post), but yet, they are being labeled as "misinformed quacks" and effectively "silenced" (cancelled) by the mainstream media and those others that cannot see the logical implications of our current policies.

InPitzotl, you are missing the point.

If you view this planet as a singular body

What would you do if an infection was invading your (personal) body? -- would you keep the healthy white blood cells away from the infection?

If not, then why keep the healthy cells (healthy people) away from the planetary infection?

Keeping healthy cells (healthy people) away from the infection = certain death, ...in either respect.

I am pretty certain we're dealing with someone with some kind of mental illness.

But more interestingly, why was it called Parler rather than Parlour?

...is this correct?

healthy people (those with good immune systems) in general, don't die from covid,

Empirical data tells us otherwise.

the "fear mongering" media,

The articles that you link only further increase the "fear mongering"

In seems that you are promoting that we do nothing to stop this virus.

The longer we wait and keep our healthy population hidden away (via social distancing) from implementing strategic herd immunity, the sooner we reach the point-of-no-return where we won't have enough fire extinguisher material (healthy people) to put out the huge wildfire (the growing deadlier virus).

unless of course, you have no real sincere intent of trying to understand a view different than yours

InPitzotl:If we infect everyone on the planet with covid...

Who said anything about infecting "EVERYONE"?????

We only expose the HEALTHY to covid, not the vulnerable

The healthy don't die of of exposure to covid, they gain immunity.

This is referred to as "strategic herd immunity".

...so then what are you promoting? ...to just keep hiding and hope it goes away???

I am only seeing excuses for 'inaction'.

Roger Gregoire:We only expose the HEALTHY to covid, not the vulnerable!

InPitzotl:And that will only increase the total number of viruses.

Roger Gregoire:The healthy don't die of exposure to covid, they gain immunity.

InPitzotl:But again, the problem is that immunity through infection requires healthy people to be sick.

InPitzotl:The only way to make a healthy person who isn't sick "immune by infection" is to get him sick.

InPitzotl:The only viruses an immune person's immune system would fight are those that happen to make it inside that immune person's body.

Roger Gregoire:...so then what are you promoting? ...to just keep hiding and hope it goes away???

InPitzotl:1. Minimize the number of sick people.

InPitzotl:2. Maximize immunity through vaccination.

Roger Gregoire:I am only seeing excuses for 'inaction'.

InPitzotl:Then you're being dishonest. Inaction is doing nothing. Social distancing decreases the amount of infected people compared to inaction.

InPitzotl:The only viruses an immune person's immune system would fight are those that happen to make it inside that immune person's body.

FALSE. Strategic herd immunity REDUCES the total number of viruses, not "increases".

Either you believe herd immunity gives a protective effect, or you don't. ...so which is it?

Who said anything about infecting "EVERYONE"???

Most healthy people are asymptomatic.

FALSE. "Sickness" is a reflection of physical symptoms

On the other hand, those with weaker immune systems

I don't call "hiding" from the virus as "taking action".

Hiding (of healthy people)

only allows the virus to continue to grow and mutate, ultimately killing many more people.

We have been brainwashed into believing the mantra "social distancing saves lives", which is true for vulnerable people, but absolutely false for healthy people

For every virus that is killed by a healthy immune person, means one less virus for a vulnerable person to be potentially exposed to.

InPitzotl:Getting everyone sick accomplishes herd immunity…

InPitzotl:That implies that you might agree that keeping vulnerable people away from the infected is a good idea. So for follow up questions... 1. do you in fact agree with this? And 2. if so, why do you think it is a good idea?

InPitzotl:The virus only grows in number if it infects people.

InPitzotl:The virus also increases numbers by replicating, and that's a prerequisite to mutating. The more viruses you create, the higher risk of mutation.

InPitzotl:So you're recommending the exact opposite strategy to attain the goal you state.

Roger Gregoire:For every virus that is killed by a healthy immune person, means one less virus for a vulnerable person to be potentially exposed to.

InPitzotl:You don't seem to have a good sense of proportion here. Imagine smoke again... a bunch of particles in the air. I get a friend into the room with me. Every smoke particle that sticks to my friend's lungs is one less particle I can potentially breathe in.

InPitzotl:Imagine a dusty floor. A dog walks across it, and then I do. Every piece of dust that touches that dog's paw is a piece of dust that cannot get my shoe dirty.

InPitzotl:But do we clear smoke from a room by dragging friends in to breathe it? Do we clean floors by sending dogs through to walk on it? No, we don't... that would be insane.

This is blatantly false.

It is not that we necessarily need to keep vulnerable people away from certain people, it is that we need to keep vulnerable people away from contaminated environments.

Other than that, people either contribute (shed) viruses back into the environment or they remove (stop; kill) viruses from the environment. One or the other.

And so what is your point???

There's a real effect here, but it's minuscule.

Are you trying to imply that we shouldn't try to stop this virus through herd immunity?

...do you have a better way?

Why? All of the healthy people become immune, per our model. All vulnerable people die, per our model. Dead people can't get infected because they're dead; living people can't get infected because they're immune. That's herd immunity.

Although you may agree, that healthy people (those with good immune systems) in general, don't die from covid, they nonetheless CONTRIBUTE (shed) MORE virus back into the environment than they REMOVE (stop;kill), and therefore should practice social distancing to the same extent as vulnerable people (those with weak immune systems), so as to help minimize the exposure to our vulnerable people.

Completely agree. I also completely support the premise. It would be rough for awhile, but long term effects would be less damaging than the current path. Less economic fallout, healthier general population, and another virus that no one would worry about. Totally support exposing everyone. Let the dog out and see how it runs!

Firstly; There is a world of difference between killing millions of people and letting them die. I realize that most people would not understand, or appreciate, the distinction.

Secondly; The assumption that the lockdowns, social distancing and general fall out from the Covid response will not kill millions long term is laughable. I am impressed with your naivety.

Thirdly; By not allowing natural selection to occur, through falsely propping up those who would otherwise fall, we weaken the species, thereby allowing an increase in future deaths to yet another virus.

Spoken very obediently. Well done. It is easy to say that things would be worse if we weren't doing this, very hard to prove something that isn't happening. However, the places that did nothing are in equal or slightly better position than the rest of us, so really, I am of the opinion that all of this has been a colossal waste of time and money. Things are going to kill us. That is the name of the game.

Human Life: sexually transmitted and 100% fatal. Not sure what the concern is all about. Just another thing that can, but likely won't, kill you. Why the panic?

Sweden. Better infection rates, better mortality rates. No response other than wash your hands and take care. Last I looked the US was doing better than Canada, infection and mortality wise, but I admit, it's been a few days since I bothered to look.

I find the speeches from our public health officials and leaders entertaining as hell. I also don't buy into any of it. "imagine how bad it would be if we weren't doing this..." And the ever popular "It would be working better but for the unseen non-complier..." Nonsense all around. If I tried that in business or advertising I would be charged criminally with fraud. "Use Jimmy's sleep rub and get a 20% better sleep! Slept badly after using it? Just think how much worse it would have been if you had not used it? You're welcome, buy more." I can't use that logic in business without legal reprisal, but it's ok for my public health officials? No chance. A cheap sales pitch is just that, no matter where it comes from.

What we have on hour hands is an infectious pandemic and the mode of spread is close contact - living/working in the same space, physical contact, poor hygiene. Put two and two together, what do you get?

Sweden. Better infection rates, better mortality rates. No response other than wash your hands and take care. Last I looked the US was doing better than Canada, infection and mortality wise, but I admit, it's been a few days since I bothered to look.

It would be rough for awhile, but long term effects would be less damaging than the current path.

The shit-stain is lying through his teeth.

So no licking each other, spitting on each other

So I am supposed to assume that the tiny ass virus is being blocked with all the precautions, but, somehow, the hair is getting through?

We know that increased baseline health increases one's ability to fight off the virus. We know that good airflow and fresh air help reduce viral exposure. We know that UV light helps kill the virus. Public health mandates us to stay home, stay indoors, closes all the gyms, and puts in a curfew to unsure we stay indoors for 10 hours day, breathing recycled air, out of the sun. These are measures which will enhance viral infection. But the reason the numbers go up is the non-compliers. Right

The numbers go up because they are going up no matter what we do.

slightly slower progress

Sorry but it's a ridiculous premise. "we will do massive collateral damage, requiring generations to rebuild. Lives will be lost, economies will collapse, and possibly wars may start. But we can SLOW IT DOWN, a little." Seriously, terrible plan.

InPitzotl:All of the healthy people become immune, per our model. All vulnerable people die, per our model.

Roger Gregoire:It is not that we necessarily need to keep vulnerable people away from certain people, it is that we need to keep vulnerable people away from contaminated environments.

InPitzotl:But Roger; the environment surrounding an infected person is contaminated. So we should keep vulnerable people away from infected people. Right?

InPitzotl:Herd immunity is not, as you described, a matter of immune people cleaning the environment up. It's a matter of viruses dying before they infect the next guy.

InPitzotl:Herd immunity itself isn't bad, but herd immunity by means of a process that leaves you with avoidable casualties is.

InPitzotl:Social distance and vaccinations is better. Both minimize infections.

Book273:Totally support exposing everyone. Let the dog out and see how it runs!

Echarmion:The other is that "healthy" people still die or experience significant complications, and we only have limited resources to deal with that as well.

Book273:Sweden. Better infection rates, better mortality rates. No response other than wash your hands and take care.

Name calling isn't helpful.

Sweden:  1:942

Finland: 1:8734

Norway:  1:9835

Denmark: 1:3050

USA:    1:804

Canada: 1:2031

Vulnerable people don't die when healthy become immune. Vulnerable people only die if we don't protect them from the virus.

Vulnerable people are protected (via herd immunity) by being surrounded by healthy immune people.

But if you are saying - a 'healthy' infected person contaminates (sheds) lots of virus… - then no, I disagree, because healthy infected people remove more of the virus than they shed.

...which is the same thing as I said. Viruses die (are killed) within healthy people, and replicate and shed within vulnerable people.

Note: vulnerable people don't necessarily die when infected, but they certainly replicate and shed the virus big time.

...what casualties? ...healthy people don't die from herd immunity? ...and vulnerable people are protected? ...so who is dying, ...what causalties?

Social distancing of the healthy population destroys any gains made by the social distancing of the vulnerable.

Vaccinations are great, but if we social distance our vaccinated population then no gains will be made, as this only puts us right back in the mess we are in now.

If vaccinated people don't enter society to give a protective effect (i.e. remove more virus than it sheds)

if you are saying - a 'healthy' infected person contaminates (sheds) lots of virus… - then no, I disagree, because healthy infected people remove more of the virus than they shed.

Thirdly; By not allowing natural selection to occur, through falsely propping up those who would otherwise fall, we weaken the species, thereby allowing an increase in future deaths to yet another virus.

Healthy people, in general, don't die, or have symptoms when exposed to covid. Look at the actual statistics, and not the news that likes to hype the rare 'exceptions' to the rule.

Roger Gregoire:...what casualties? ...healthy people don't die from [strategic] herd immunity, ...and vulnerable people are protected

InPitzotl:The vulnerable people who die as a consequence of viruses put into the environment due to your naively infecting healthy people.

Roger Gregoire:Healthy people, in general, don't die, or have symptoms when exposed to covid. Look at the actual statistics, and not the news that likes to hype the rare 'exceptions' to the rule.

Echarmion:With 7 Billion people, rare exceptions still happen a lot.

You seem to be playing both sides of the fence here.

1. Do healthy immune people SAVE vulnerable people (via herd immunity)? ...or
2. Do healthy immune people KILL vulnerable people (via viral spread)?

If herd immunity is our ONLY solution to saving vulnerable people, then what are we waiting for?

We can achieve herd immunity through infection, vaccination, and/or the combination of both.

Is it the fear that some of these vulnerable people might die?

Sorry, and no offense, but this just seems to be an excuse for "inaction", or an excuse to just keep hiding (social distancing), and allowing the virus to continue killing our vulnerable.

And furthermore,

This vaccine should empower all healthy immune people (including those previously infected and those recently vaccinated) to immediately rip their masks off and start socializing asap to develop herd immunity to protect the vulnerable, including the vulnerable who are too vulnerable to accept a vaccine.

However, if you would like to open the descriptor of "natural" to include any event which leads to any death, then yes, those who die from collateral damage would be considered, as per your interpretation, as "natural selection", however, once that has been allowed, everything would fall under said category and it would become effectively useless as a descriptor.

Roger Gregoire:1. Do healthy immune people SAVE vulnerable people (via herd immunity)?

InPitzotl:Your question in 1 is a leading question, and the underlying premise of the question is wrong.

InPitzotl:This is misguided. You said it yourself --> Roger Gregoire said - "We can achieve herd immunity through infection, vaccination, and/or the combination of both."

Mayo Clinic:"There are two paths to herd immunity for COVID-19 — vaccines and infection."

InPitzotl:Here, you have insisted on calling social distancing "hiding"...

Virtually all reputable medical scientists on this planet (even Dr. Fauci) agree that #1 is true.

Wikipedia article:Immune individuals are unlikely to contribute to(a) disease transmission, disrupting chains of infection, which stops or slows the spread of disease. The greater the proportion of immune individuals in a community, the smaller the probability that non-immune individuals will come into contact with an infectious individual.(b)

Do healthy immune people SAVE vulnerable people (via herd immunity)?

the only role healthy people play is not getting infected.

Yes, what I said is true. And again, virtually all reputable medical scientists on this planet agree with me.

If herd immunity is our ONLY solution to saving vulnerable people, then what are we waiting for?

Is the Mayo Clinic also "misguided"?

Yes, "social distancing" is nothing more than "hiding" from the virus, pure and simple. If you want to pretend that it isn't, ...then that is your choice, ...but I prefer to call it as it is.

InPitzotl:Roger, what are you doing here? If your aim is to convince someone you're correct, try logic instead of irrationality. If all you're doing is disagreeing to defend your opinion, you're not going to accomplish much here.

This is funny that you say this, because this is exactly how I see your responses. Isn't it interesting how we each see the other as the irrational one?

This is irrational (logically flawed),

for we gain herd immunity through infection and/or vaccination, and it is well known there are very many people who are asymptomatic (do not get sick) when infected, and very many people who also do not get sick when vaccinated.

This is irrational (logically flawed), for if this were true, then herd immunity would be easy to achieve.

Imagine having a room full of people (both vulnerable and healthy) and we put all the healthy people in space suits (to guarantee that none of them get infected), then according to your logic, we could achieve herd immunity in the room.

Or better yet, we could create herd immunity on a larger scale by shipping all healthy people in Oklahoma to Arizona (which guarantees no infection of healthy people in Oklahoma), and voila, the 100% vulnerable people remaining in Oklahoma are now instantly and magically immune, and protected from the virus!

In actuality, herd immunity works because healthy immune people remove (stop/kill) more of the virus from the environment than they contribute (shed/spread) into the environment,

...and NOT because they are just standing there "not getting infected" within a crowd (herd) of people.

Roger Gregoire:1. "getting everyone sick will lead to herd immunity" -- InPitzotl

This is irrational (logically flawed), for we gain herd immunity through infection and/or vaccination, and it is well known there are very many people who are asymptomatic (do not get sick) when infected, and very many people who also do not get sick when vaccinated.

InPitzotl:If a sore gets infected by bacteria, I don't get sick either. But the bacteria grows. Your distinction is a red herring.

If a sore gets infected by bacteria, I don't get sick either. But the bacteria grows. Your distinction is a red herring.

Your response attempts to change the direction of the discussion (by creating a stinky diversionary distraction; aka "red herring") away from Rogers words, so as to prevent us from looking at the actual logic presented by Roger.

If you would like, we could also break down, analyze, and expose the logical error (irrationality) of your statement --> 2. "the only role healthy people play in herd immunity is by not getting infected" -- InPitzotl

InPitzotl:You are making a distinction between "sick" and "infected"; per that distinction, "sick" means symptomatic, and infections don't require symptoms. But according to your premises P1-P3, herd immunity is related to infections, not sickness. Apparently, you're trying to make the point that this distinction is irrelevant. And that's the same thing I said; that this distinction is irrelevant. So what is the problem?

InPitzotl:Incidentally, C1 follows from your premises, but C2 does not. Yet C2 has the word "therefore" in it. So how exactly did you reach conclusion C2?

InPitzotl:2. "the only role healthy people play in herd immunity is by not getting infected" -- InPitzotl

No logical error there. What I describe actually works. To demonstrate, I coded it... the code is here: https://pastebin.com/JgC6UkND ...should be run in a terminal with any generic term that does basic escape codes (cygwin, linux, w/e).

No problem with my logic.

f my premises are true, then sickness is irrelevant.

C2 follows from C1

C1 says "sickness is irrelevant".

Your coding sidesteps the issue (and "begs-the-question"). The question is how/why herd immunity works in the first place.

If this were not true, then herd immunity would be impossible.

Logically, the only way healthy immune people can provide a protective effect (herd immunity), is if they stop/adsorb/kill the virus around them (in their local environment).

InPitzotl, your coding "begs-the-question", it pre-assumes the conclusion.

You need to show your logic (and don't automatically assume it) that "healthy immune people standing around not getting infected" logically results in "herd immunity; protective effect to the vulnerable".

I'll wait.

So then, what is P2?

P2. Many vaccinated people also don't get sick.

For discussion purposes only, I'll oversimplify. Let's say everyone is either healthy, or vulnerable {line 18}. I'll grant 1 and 2 literally; vulnerable people who get sick die, and healthy people who get sick become immune {line 284}. Unstated, for simplicity, let's presume that everyone who is vaccinated becomes immune {line 174, part of setup}.

But here's how the mechanics work. Everyone starts out uninfected, call that state (A) {line 26}. They can become infected, state (B), if exposed to a carrier {line 298}. A carrier is essentially another person in state (B). Then if the person is healthy, they go to state (C1), immune {line 293}. If they are vulnerable, they go to state (C2), dead {line 287}. So in these terms we want to minimize the number of people in state (C2), death by covid.

If this were true, then we could simply lock up all healthy immune people in quarantine, and voila, then we would magically achieve herd immunity and save all the vulnerable people.

Roger Gregoire:InPitzotl, your coding/program/model all "beg-the-question", it pre-assumes the conclusion. You need to show your logic (and don't automatically assume it). Show the missing premise P2 that logically connects P1. to C1.

P1. Healthy immune people not getting infected.
P2. (...missing)
C1. Therefore, we get herd immunity; protection for our vulnerable people.

Roger Gregoire:So then, what is P2? How do we get from P1 to C1?

InPitzotl:Are you talking about this P2?: "P2. Many vaccinated people also don't get sick." That's your premise, not part of my model. Sick per your definition is irrelevant.

InPitzotl:But here's how the mechanics work. Everyone starts out uninfected, call that state (A) {line 26}. They can become infected, state (B), if exposed to a carrier {line 298}. A carrier is essentially another person in state (B).

Roger Gregoire:2. "the only role healthy people play in herd immunity is by not getting infected" -- InPitzotl

If this were true, then we could simply lock up all healthy immune people in quarantine, and voila, then we would magically achieve herd immunity and save all the vulnerable people.

Isaac:This is absolutely and demonstrably true, so I don't see how you think it supports your view.

If we locked up all the healthy people and left the others exactly where they are geographically, we would indeed have reached herd immunity. The remaining viable hosts would be, on average, too socially isolated to transmit the virus to new non-immune hosts and so the virus (being unable to live outside of a non-immune host) would die.

Seriously? ...you are playing games, ...you know very well what P2 I am referring too.

Roger's logic: ...
P2. Many vaccinated people also don't get sick.

InPitzotl's response: ...
P2. But the bacteria grows.

P1. Healthy immune people not getting infected. ...
P2. (...missing)

Roger Gregoire:P1. Healthy immune people not getting infected.
P2. (...missing)
C1. Therefore, we get herd immunity; protection for our vulnerable people

The starting condition (inputs) of your model is flawed, which results in unreliable results.

For discussion purposes only, I'll oversimplify.

First error. People don't get infected from other people. They get infected by being in(<-A) a contaminated environment.(<-B)

I'm not able to open and see your actual coding. What equation are you using to yield herd immunity (the protection effect to the vulnerable)?

The amount of the virus within a given environment, divided by the total number of people within that environment dictate the initial odds of a person getting infected.

Imagine 100 people are inside a room with 10 mosquitos flying about. Further imagine that 50 of these people are healthy (a mosquito bite does not bother them) and 50 people are vulnerable, whereas they would have a severe reaction and possibly die if bitten by a mosquito. So the initial odds of a vulnerable person getting bit by a mosquito is 10%

([s]100[/s] 10 mosquitos, [s]10[/s] 100 people = 10% chance of [s]anyone[/s][each?] getting bit).

INPITZOTL'S THEORY: If we keep healthy people from getting infected then we will reach herd immunity and protect and save the vulnerable people.

Okay, let's try [s]InPitzotl's[/s] theory -- let's put the 50 healthy people in mosquito proof gunny sacks, to prevent them from getting bit. Okay so now what are the odds of the vulnerable people getting bit? ...it has doubled!, ...it is now 20%! (10 mosquitos, and 50 exposed people, = 20% chance of getting bit).

We need to immediately "un-socially distance" healthy people! If we let healthy people (including those who were previously infected and those who were recently vaccinated) expose themselves and get infected then we will reach herd immunity and protect and save the vulnerable people.

Roger Gregoire:The amount of the virus within a given environment, divided by the total number of people within that environment dictate the initial odds of a person getting infected.

InPitzotl:That doesn't make sense. Let's take scenario A: There are n viruses in an environment, one person in the environment, and there's a 90% chance this person gets infected. Now consider scenario B, we put two people in that environment. Are you saying there's now a 45% chance each get infected?

The amount of the virus within a given environment, divided by the total number of people within that environment dictate the initial odds of a person getting infected.

And then, the ratio of healthy people to total people within that same environment, multiplied by the initial odds, yields the protective effect to the vulnerable people.

This is the correct equation for determining the protective effects of herd immunity, and not the "distance" from healthy people to vulnerable people, nor the "distance" that the virus has to travel.

No. The initial odds of infection are n viruses/n people in a given environment.

Imagine 100 people are inside a room with 10 airborne virus.

INPITZOTL'S THEORY: If we keep healthy people from getting infected then we will reach herd immunity and protect and save the vulnerable people.

let's put the 50 healthy people in mosquito proof [mosquito nets], to prevent them from getting bit.

InPitzotl:Incidentally, I think you're missing the part where you mention that maybe 10 of these healthy people, if bit, have a fair likelihood of developing this odd condition where the mosquitos reproduce in their body and come out of their mouth and nose in scores.[quote]

This is more bad science. Logically, healthy immune people destroy more of the virus than they create. If this were not so, then herd immunity would not only be theoretically impossible, but also logically impossible.

If everyone, including healthy immune people only "contributed" virus back into the environment (and not "removed" virus from the environment), then healthy people would have no functional role in herd immunity. There would be no such thing as herd immunity.

********************

[quote="InPitzotl"]You speak as if social distancing prevents healthy people from getting infected.

InPitzot:If so, why aren't you considering social distancing for the vulnerable?

Huh? Vulnerable people need to social distance much more than they currently are. We need to minimize the contamination in the environment.

InPitzotl:So, P0=Nv/Np, where P0 is initial probability, Nv is number of viruses, Np number of people.

And then, the ratio of healthy people to total people within that same environment, multiplied by the initial odds, yields the protective effect to the vulnerable people.

So, E=P0/Nh, where E is the protective effect, and Nh the number of healthy people.

Probability still doesn't work that way I'm afraid. If there are 1000 viruses in the room, and 2 people, 1 of which is healthy, you have:

P0=500=50000%
E=50000%*(1/2)=25000%

E is just the protective effect, it doesn't tell you how many (or what %) of people are saved, or have died.

P0=Nv/Np, where P0 is initial probability, Nv is number of viruses, Np number of people.

P0=Nv/Np, where P0 is initial probability, Nv is number of viruses, Np number of people.

InPitzotl:There's a room with 5 healthy people and 5 vulnerable people in it. Are you going to add 10 healthy people or remove 5 vulnerable people?

Oops, I've got "Nv" representing two different things. Corrected equation:

1. If we add healthy people, then less vulnerable people die.
2. If we remove (quarantine) vulnerable people, then less vulnerable people die.
3. If we do both, then even less vulnerable people die.
I vote we do BOTH to maximize the saving of vulnerable people.

Isaac:Really? That's what you're correcting? Not the manifestly false claim that healthy people remove viruses from the environment faster than socially distanced unhealthy ones, for which you've provided absolutely zero evidential support and on which your entire thesis is based?

Again, if healthy immune people didn't remove more of the virus than they contribute, then herd immunity would be logically and theoretically impossible.

Roger Gregoire:
1. If we add healthy people, then less vulnerable people die.
2. If we remove (quarantine) vulnerable people, then less vulnerable people die.
3. If we do both, then even less vulnerable people die.

InPitzotl:This is muddled up and inconsistent. ...you computed that more people die when healthy people are put in mosquito nets than if we had the healthy people in the room.

InPitzotl:You may as well take those people out, but then you're saying that more people die by becoming infected when you isolate than when you don't.

InPitzotl:But again, you're saying that we need to stop isolating healthy people so that they become infected.

Roger Gregoire:Again, if healthy immune people didn't remove more of the virus than they contribute, then herd immunity would be logically and theoretically impossible.

InPitzotl:The computer program I wrote proves this wrong.

I suspect it more likely that your program is not using the true volumetric ("density") calculations, or contains some false assumptions.

InPitzotl:And immune people never clean the environment.

any virus that infects an immune person

INPITZOTL'S PROGRAM: If we keep healthy people from getting infected then we will reach herd immunity and protect and save the vulnerable people.

I suspect you have an error(s) and/or false assumptions in your program

Roger Gregoire:INPITZOTL'S PROGRAM: If we keep healthy people from getting infected then we will reach herd immunity and protect and save the vulnerable people.

InPitzotl:Funny, I don't recall coding that. What line of code are you looking at?

Isaac, look at the math and the logic.

You did say this, ...right? --- "the only role healthy people play in herd immunity is by not getting infected" -- InPitzotl

So then how do "healthy people not getting infected" create herd immunity in your program?

Roger Gregoire:So then how do "healthy people not getting infected" create herd immunity in your program?

InPitzotl:You're confused. Reread that statement. This is a description of what herd immunity is, not a strategy for attaining it.

InPitzotl:A healthy person that cannot get sick, just can't spread the disease. So even if he's within 5 squares of you, he's not going to give you an infection. It's not that he's cleaning it up (there's no cleanups in this model), it's just that he's not getting sick.

Okay, so let me try asking a different way. How does healthy people factor into protecting vulnerable people in your model?

So how do these people factor in achieving herd immunity in your program/model?

Can you show the math equation (similar to what I did) to see to how you account for these healthy people?

enum State { Uninfected, Infected, Immune, Dead };

struct Person { bool vulnerable; State state; unsigned x, y; vector neighbors; };

void evolve()   {

   set died;

   set immunized;

   set infected;

   for (auto& p : people) {

      if (p.state == Infected) {

         if (p.vulnerable) {

            died.insert(&p);

         } else {

            immunized.insert(&p); }

         for (auto &neighbor : p.neighbors)

            if (neighbor->state==Uninfected) {

               infected.insert(neighbor); } } }

   for (auto &p : died) p->state = Dead;

   for (auto &p : immunized) p->state = Immune;

   for (auto &p : infected) p->state = Infected;

}