If you are trying to falsely represent the virus as grains of sand, or molecules of water relative to two people (Joe and John), then the virus greatly outnumbers the people. Once we are outnumbered, the party is over. — Roger Gregoire

Astronomy is a field that is used to dealing with large numbers, but these can be dwarfed when compared with life on the microbial scale. For instance, if all the 1 × 10³¹ viruses on earth were laid end to end, they would stretch for 100 million light years. Furthermore, there are 100 million times as many bacteria in the oceans (13 × 10²⁸) as there are stars in the known universe. The rate of viral infection in the oceans stands at 1 × 10²³ infections per second, and these infections remove 20–40% of all bacterial cells each day. Moving onto dry land, the number of microorganisms in a teaspoon of soil (1 × 10⁹) is the same as the number of humans currently living in Africa. Even more amazingly, dental plaque is so densely packed that a gram will contain approximately 1 × 10¹¹ bacteria, roughly the same number of humans that have ever lived. Not quite so densely packed but impressive all the same, the bacteria present in the average human gut weigh about 1 kilogram, and a human adult will excrete their own weight in faecal bacteria each year. The number of genes contained within this gut flora outnumbers that contained within our own genome 150-fold, and even in our genome, 8% of the DNA is derived from remnants of viral genomes.

...an irrelevant red herring. — Roger Gregoire

it distributes a significant portion of the viral load to the healthy immune (who don't die) — Roger Gregoire

The reason herd immunity works is because it distributes a significant portion of the viral load — Roger Gregoire

Your theory is just the opposite. Your theory is based on creating an insufficient proportion! — Roger Gregoire

You falsely think that if you move all healthy immune people AWAY from vulnerable, that somehow this gives more protection to the vulnerable. — Roger Gregoire

To create herd immunity, you need to move healthy people into a vulnerable population, not away from it! — Roger Gregoire

If social distancing of our healthy population is such a good thing, then why is it not working? — Roger Gregoire

Next year, if we continue this foolishness — Roger Gregoire

Isn't that the definition of insanity? ...keep doing the same thing and expect a different result? — Roger Gregoire

It's not just me saying this, but virtually all medical experts, scientists, and health agencies (e.g. CDC, etc) also say this. Why you believe otherwise, is baffling. — Roger Gregoire

Herd immunity: See Community immunity. — CDC Glossary

Community immunity: A situation in which a sufficient proportion of a population is immune to an infectious disease (through vaccination and/or prior illness) to make its spread from person to person unlikely. Even individuals not vaccinated (such as newborns and those with chronic illnesses) are offered some protection because the disease has little opportunity to spread within the community. Also known as herd immunity. — CDC Glossary

To the contrary. Remember: nothing happens to healthy immune people when they get infected — Roger Gregoire

InPitzotl, I think we are at a stand-still. Neither of us are budging from our positions, so I think it is time to say "we agree to disagree". — Roger Gregoire

But one last request before we depart. How about we make a deal? — Roger Gregoire

Not only does this contradict basic math and logic — Roger Gregoire

Without healthy people mixing in with vulnerable people there can be no protective effect whatsoever. — Roger Gregoire

If so, then it is based on your view; your opinion; your interpretation of how herd immunity works. — Roger Gregoire

It is an expression of your opinion, ...which, in my opinion, doesn't accurately match how herd immunity or how the protective effect truly works. — Roger Gregoire

But yet, according to your program, and your belief, healthy people are not really "necessary". They just need to "stay out of the way and not get infected", right? — Roger Gregoire

Where exactly is the the protective effect if everyone always gets infected? — Book273

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

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

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

enum State { Uninfected, Infected, Immune, Dead };
struct Person { bool vulnerable; State state; unsigned x, y; vector<Person*> neighbors; };
void evolve()   {
   set<Person*> died;
   set<Person*> immunized;
   set<Person*> 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;
}

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

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

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

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

any virus that infects an immune person — Roger Gregoire

I suspect it more likely that your program is not using the true volumetric ("density") calculations, or contains some false assumptions. — 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. — 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.
I vote we do BOTH to maximize the saving of vulnerable people. — Roger Gregoire

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

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

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

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

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. — Roger Gregoire

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

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

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

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

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

InPitzotl's response: ...
P2. But the bacteria grows. — Roger Gregoire

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 — Roger Gregoire

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

For discussion purposes only, I'll oversimplify. — InPitzotl

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

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)? — 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. — Roger Gregoire

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% — Roger Gregoire

(100 10 mosquitos, 10 100 people = 10% chance of anyone[each?] getting bit). — Roger Gregoire

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

Okay, let's try InPitzotl'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). — Roger Gregoire

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

So then, what is P2? — Roger Gregoire

P2. Many vaccinated people also don't get sick. — Roger Gregoire

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. — InPitzotl

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

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". — Roger Gregoire

I'll wait. — Roger Gregoire

No problem with my logic. — Roger Gregoire

f my premises are true, then sickness is irrelevant. — Roger Gregoire

C2 follows from C1 — Roger Gregoire

C1 says "sickness is irrelevant". — Roger Gregoire

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

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

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). — Roger Gregoire

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

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. — Roger Gregoire

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 — Roger Gregoire

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? — Roger Gregoire

This is irrational (logically flawed), — Roger Gregoire

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. — Roger Gregoire

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

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, — Roger Gregoire

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

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

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) — Wikipedia article

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

the only role healthy people play is not getting infected. — InPitzotl

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

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

Is the Mayo Clinic also "misguided"? — Roger Gregoire

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. — Roger Gregoire

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

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

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

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

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

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. — Roger Gregoire

And furthermore, — Roger Gregoire

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. — Roger Gregoire

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

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. — Roger Gregoire

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

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

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

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

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. — Roger Gregoire

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

It would be rough for awhile, but long term effects would be less damaging than the current path. — Book273

This is blatantly false. — 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. — Roger Gregoire

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. — Roger Gregoire

And so what is your point??? — Roger Gregoire

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

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

...do you have a better way?

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

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

Who said anything about infecting "EVERYONE"??? — Roger Gregoire

Most healthy people are asymptomatic. — Roger Gregoire

FALSE. "Sickness" is a reflection of physical symptoms — Roger Gregoire

On the other hand, those with weaker immune systems — Roger Gregoire

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

Hiding (of healthy people) — Roger Gregoire

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

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

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

I am only seeing excuses for 'inaction'.

Who said anything about infecting "EVERYONE"????? — Roger Gregoire

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

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

This is referred to as "strategic herd immunity". — Roger Gregoire

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). — Roger Gregoire

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

InPitzotl, you are missing the point. — Roger Gregoire

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? — Roger Gregoire

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

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

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. — Roger Gregoire

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. — Roger Gregoire

Correct! ...and how do you stop an infection??? — Roger Gregoire

do you keep your "healthy" cells; white blood cells away from it? — 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. — Roger Gregoire

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

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

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

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

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. — 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. — Roger Gregoire

And again, healthy immune people "clean up" (stop the spread of) covid-19 contamination. If this were not true, then herd immunity would be impossible. — Roger Gregoire

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. — Roger Gregoire

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

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