I am saying that unmasked healthy people protect vulnerable people from getting infected by being in close proximity with them. — Roger Gregoire

Then viruses have to be there in the first place. — AgentTangerine

If there are no viral particles in the room, then the vulnerable person is already safe. If there are viral particles in the room then the unmasked immune person in the room helps keep these deadly particles away from the vulnerable person.

The safety benefit to the vulnerable person (with the unmasked immune person in the same environment) can be calculated via a simple risk analysis/assessment calculation.

But the increased volume in the room (of his body) will increase the virus density around the lady. — AgentTangerine

No, this is not true. Remember, healthy immune people (in general) don't shed/spread the virus.

The replication (and subsequent emitting) of the virus is related to the health and strength of one's immune system. Those with strong healthy immune systems do not (in general) shed the virus.

Yes, they [vaccinations] work so long as we don't mask (and socially isolate) our healthy vaccinated population.

…Any gains made by vaccination is more than erased by the losses created by masking (and social distancing) the healthy vaccinated population. — Roger Gregoire

What has masking to do with working? It works also when masking. Are you saying it works only if you don't mask because healthy people take away viruses around the fragile people? — AgentTangerine

I am saying that unmasked healthy people protect vulnerable people from getting infected by being in close proximity with them. The protective effect is significant! The proof is in the risk assessment calculation.

The reason that many of us can't recognize this protective effect is because we have been pre-conditioned to falsely believe that this virus transmits "person-to-person". We have been pre-conditioned to believe that people next to each other is 'BAD', and that people separated (at least 6') away from each other is 'GOOD' (via non-truth propaganda/slogans such as "Social Distancing Saves Lives"). For anything that contradicts our inner notion of 'GOOD' and 'BAD' is automatically discarded (by our minds) as 'WRONG'. Hence, the strong passionate defense and insults against people like me claiming that we've got it all (our 'good' and 'bad') backwards.

Contrary to our pre-conditioned beliefs, this virus does NOT transmit "person-to-person" (our respiratory systems are not directly connected to each other!). The virus transmits "person-to-environment" and "environment-to-person". We get infected by being in contaminated environments. Period. -- For example, someone could spew (cough/sneeze) tens of thousands of viral particles into our local grocery store, and be thousands of miles away (more than 6 feet away!) when these particles infect a vulnerable person. (Note: viral particles can survive many hours airborne and up to a few days on particular surfaces e.g. cardboard, etc).

Bottom-line: We get infected by being in "contaminated environments". Period. Not via "person-to-person". Once we are able to grasp this notion (this truth) into our brains, then we can more readily see and understand the protective effect of unmasked healthy people in close proximity of vulnerable people. We can then see and understand the risk assessment/ safety analysis. We can then see that we are killing our people (via separations and maskings) faster than we are saving them (via vaccinations).

Until then, we (our minds) will automatically reject any notion of people being "close together" or "unmasked" as 'BAD'. Our brain/mind tells us that this notion is 'BAD' because it is counter to what we have been pre-conditioned to believe. Unfortunately, we have been pre-conditioned to believe a falsity. Hopefully people (especially our political leaders) will recognize the grave error soon, and turn this ship around before we reach a point of no return.

Vaccinations work. — AgentTangerine

Yes, they work so long as we don't mask (and socially isolate) our healthy vaccinated population.

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

The masking of our healthy vaccinated population renders the vaccine ineffective.

1 step forward, 2 steps back.

Any gains made by vaccination is more than erased by the losses created by masking (and social distancing) the healthy vaccinated population.

1 step forward, 2 steps back.

Repeat after me, over and over again, until we finally come to our senses.

And if we don't come to our senses, then we will be on a endless trail of vaccine after vaccine, booster after booster, chasing the never-ending end, like a dog chasing his tail.

The man might take some away, but later on he will emit new ones (despite of being immune), increasing the risk for the woman. — AgentTangerine

Agent, this is the FALSE premise statement that many of us have been brainwashed to believe.

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

Me getting infected will actually increase the chances of you getting infected because I will also start spreading the virus. — Tobias

Tobias, this statement is FALSE. If you are healthy and get infected it will REDUCE the chance of me getting infected (assuming that we are in the same environment).

Remember, healthy people (in general) do not spread the virus. When the virus encounters a healthy immune person the viral transmission is STOPPED (and removed from the environment), thereby protecting nearby vulnerable people.

And yes, some healthy people can, in rare cases, spread the virus instead of stopping the virus. But this 'exception' does not logically justify preventing saving people's lives. There is more risk (deaths) in not letting healthy people fully socialize unmasked, than there is otherwise.

We need to be careful not to make "hasty generalizations" (a logical fallacy). This is when we hyper-focus on the few, or the bad (which prevents us from seeing the many, or the good), which then causes us to foolishly do more harm than good. For example…

1. If we hyper-focus on the deaths caused by some ambulance drivers, then we are blinded to see all the good; all the deaths that ambulance drivers prevent, thereby causing us to foolishly ban ambulance drivers from responding to emergencies (...ultimately causing more harm than good).

2. If we hyper-focus on the crime committed by some cops, then we are blinded to see all the good; all the crime (and deaths) that cops prevent, thereby causing us to foolishly defund (eliminate cops) from responding to crime (...ultimately causing more harm than good).

3. If we hyper-focus on the rare chance of healthy people spreading the virus, then we are blinded to see all the deaths that healthy people prevent, thereby causing us to foolishly prohibit healthy people from saving vulnerable people (...ultimately causing more harm than good).


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

The risk is obvious - that the person you think is 'healthy' turns out not to be and actually increases the number of viruses in 'the room'. — Isaac

This is a fair and legitimate concern. I don't think we should allow everyone to run free. But certainly, at a minimum, we should allow our younger population and healthy adults (those with no known underlying conditions), and especially those healthy people that have been vaccinated (!) to run free (fully socialize unmasked).

Since it is our (strong/healthy) immune systems that stop this virus, why are we hiding away the stoppers (those with strong/healthy immune systems) away from stopping this virus?

Hiding (social distancing/masking) from the virus is impossible. We can't make it go away by hiding. We all cant simultaneously live in sterile astronaut suits for 2 consecutive weeks until this thing dies out. One infraction starts the pandemic all over again.

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

A risk completely eliminated by just leaving the vulnerable person in isolation and cleaning her room. — Isaac

This is very idealistic, and not very pragmatic (nor realistic). We can't lock up every vulnerable person into a sterile environment (forever!) on this planet. One infraction will start an outbreak all over again. (...remember this whole pandemic started from only one person on this planet).

The only real solution is Mother Nature's way; let the healthy protect the vulnerable. We can't vaccinate our way out of this mess. We can never create new vaccines at a faster pace than new mutations will occur. We need Mother Nature's help. Doing opposite of Mother Nature only insures we lose this battle.

Your premise is that a viral load will only infect one person… — Tobias

Not so - you (and others) are reading WAY TOO MUCH into this very simple analogy.

We can have as many bullets/mosquitos/viral particles as we want. The math does not change. I only used the 1 mosquito (or 1 bullet) to make the math (in calculating Risk Assessment) super simple for everyone to plainly see.

Here is the Simple Math: Total Risk divided by Number of People Sharing that Risk = Individual Risk

For Example:
1. If the total risk is 4 bullets and there are 8 people in the room then the individual risk = 0.5X (4/8).
2. If the total risk is 2 mosquitos and there are 20 people in the room then the individual risk = 0.1X (2/20)
3. If the total risk is 1000 viral particles floating around in this room (and 1000 particles = 1 infection) and there is 1 person in the room, then the individual risk = 1X (1/1).

The inability to understand simple basic RISK ASSESSMENT is causing us to act irrationally; causing more harm than good; causing us to make "hasty generalizations" (a logical fallacy).

Examples of this irrational behavior:
1. Intentionally preventing ambulances from responding to emergencies for fear the ambulance itself may get into an accident and kill some one. --- this causes more harm (deaths) than good (non-deaths).

2. Intentionally preventing lifeguards from saving a drowning swimmer for fear the lifeguard might drown while saving the person. --- this causes more harm (deaths) than good (non-deaths).

3. Intentionally masking and social distancing healthy people for fear that they might infect and kill a vulnerable person. --- this causes more harm (deaths) than good (non-deaths).

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

We have been so brainwashed to believe that masking and social distancing healthy people is a good thing, that we passionately and blindly defend it against people like me. If only we could temporarily suspend our emotion and passion for a minute and take an honest logical look at the situation, we would then realize the foolishness of our actions.

And if we can't suspend our emotion/passion to look at this issue from a logical perspective, then we will continue being part of the cancel-culture mob of insulting anyone that disagrees with our viewpoint. God help us.

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

People get infected by being in contaminated environments. Period. — Roger Gregoire

So clean the environment. It's quite simple. SARS‑CoV‑2 is killed quite easily, most anti-bacterial wipes will do it, soap and water, just time with UV light, opening a window will clear many airborne particles… — Isaac

Yes, agreed. All this helps. So, how's that working for us so far?

Until we allow our healthy population to unmask (and fully socialize), covid will stick around, and continually breed and mutate into more contagious variants (as evidenced by empirical evidence).

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

Or give the vulnerable woman a vaccine so she can do the virus-killing herself. — Isaac

If the woman is truly vulnerable, then a vaccine won't protect her (as evidenced by empirical evidence). Ultimately vaccines are useless if we don't allow our healthy people to protect our vulnerable people.

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

You still haven't answered my question as to why you're even discussing such a massively inefficient and risky strategy… — Isaac

There is nothing "inefficient or risky" about it. This has been Mother-Natures way of protecting mankind for eons. The healthy protect the vulnerable.

Somehow, we have allowed a good scientist, but logically illiterate person (Fauci), to convince us into inadvertently destroying ourselves. And the cancel-culture mob (the passionate blind followers) to shut down anyone that disagrees with his dangerous irrationality. There are many tens of thousands of experts/scientists that see the logical flaw in Dr. Fauci's advice/opinion, but they are shut down by the cancel-culture mob who instead of having logical debate/discussion, prefer to insult and destroy the lives/careers of those that disagree.

Don't be part of the mob. Look at this issue logically; rationally. Our lives depend on it.

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

Using a naked man will certainly attract a mosquito. I hope he bites his ass. Viruses won't feel attracted to the man... — AgentTangerine

LOL Agent. The point of the "naked" man was to illustrate the amount of "risk exposure''. Mosquitoes are attracted to skin. The more skin exposed, the greater the disproportionate risk between the two people in the room.

If we mask the vulnerable lady and unmask the healthy man, then a very large disproportionate share of the risk shifts over to the man, thereby making the vulnerable lady significantly safer.

People really need to learn and understand Risk Assessment 101 before blindly following some of our political leaders dangerously irrational advice.

The point is that the naked man can introduce viruses where there are none. — AgentTangerine

Agent, check the science. In general, healthy immune people ("naked men") do NOT shed/spread the virus.

**********

You suppose there is already a mosquito in the room he enters, while in reality there is none. — AgentTangerine

Logically (and contrary to Bad Science) the transmission of the virus is from "person-to-environment" and from "environment-to-person", ...NOT from "person-to-person" (...people's respiratory systems are not directly connected to each other!).

People get infected by being in contaminated environments. Period.

Hey you all, many of you are WAY over-thinking (over-complicating) the mosquito/bullet analogy. The analogy was meant to show a simple risk analysis. This is not rocket science, it is just simple logic/math.

**********

Instead of a mosquito, imagine there is a mad killer with a gun loaded with one bullet, in this room with the woman. If the killer is intent on killing (shooting) someone, then the woman is in grave danger. ...agreed?

Now, if another person enters into the room, is the woman now safer (with a killer with one bullet), or less safe? How about if 100 people enter this room, is the woman more safe or less safe?

The math and logic (in determining risk) is very simple and straightforward. Take the number of bullets and divide it by the number of people in the room to ascertain the risk assessment to any individual in the room.

For example, if you double the number of people, you cut the individual risk in half. ...agreed? — Roger Gregoire

The analogy is again false. The virus is not a killer with one bullet. There is not 'one' virus flying about potentially only infecting one person. — Tobias

Tobias, you are misinterpreting the analogy. The "one bullet" represents a "viral infection", or if we wish to be more literal, the "one bullet" can represent "a group of 1000 viral particles" (note: it takes a minimum inhalation of 1000 viral particles to create an infection.)

********

Then, the mosquito example you gave stands supports the isolation illusion principle, because the mosquito(s) can be killed before doing harm or die after a bite. — Alkis

Correct. And viral particles can also be killed/die prior to inhalation, and of course, after inhalation.

But what about a virus, which cannot be killed but only spread in the environment… — Alkis

Viral particles are killed in the environment. They can only survive a few hours airborne and/or a few days on some surfaces.

...and transited even by relatively immune people (who will also be infected but they won't suffer from severe health conditions)? — Alkis

Alkis, contrary to what we are told by the scare-media and by Bad Science, healthy immune people (in general) do NOT spread the virus.

The risk of a healthy immune person infecting a vulnerable person is extremely low, and does not logically justify preventing saving lives.

Similarly, the risk of ambulance drivers getting into traffic accidents (and killing someone) is extremely low, and does not logically justify preventing ambulance drivers from getting into traffic to go saves lives.

The Logical fallacy being committed is called "Hasty Generalization".

To help better understand the safety benefits represented in the mosquito analogy, imagine the following --

Instead of a mosquito, imagine there is a mad killer with a gun loaded with one bullet, in this room with the woman. If the killer is intent on killing (shooting) someone, then the woman is in grave danger. ...agreed?

Now, if another person enters into the room, is the woman now safer (with a killer with one bullet), or less safe? How about if 100 people enter this room, is the woman more safe or less safe?

The math and logic (in determining risk) is very simple and straightforward. Take the number of bullets and divide it by the number of people in the room to ascertain the risk assessment to any individual in the room.

For example, if you double the number of people, you cut the individual risk in half. ...agreed?


*******************
Furthermore, many of you posters here seem to be subscribing to Bad Science. Healthy immune people (in general) do not spread the virus. True (good) science comes from empirical data, not from the scare-media, or from medical/scientific "opinions".

Remember, it is LOGIC that gives us truths (and falses), ...not Science. Science provides us with the premise statements (empirical data) from which to draw logical conclusions. Many good scientists are very poor logicians. (e.g. Fauci).

Science that disregards logic is Bad Science. Don't follow Bad Science. Follow the Logic!

If we were talking about mosquitos, and if a mosquitos behaved the way viruses do, and if mosquitos could only bite one person, perhaps you would be right. But viruses do not behave like mosquitos and you will never find one virus in a room.

So, show us some evidence. I've asked before. Several other people have too. Put up or shut up. Your so-called "simple math" is wrong. — T Clark

The number of mosquitoes (or viral particles) is irrelevant. Doubling the number of people within a given environment cuts the risk in half to any individual within that environment. Math is math regardless of the size of the number.

It baffles me that people close their eyes to simple math in favor of Bad Science.

The simple math is -- the more people sharing a viral load, the less individual risk per person. The more healthy unmasked immune people surrounding a vulnerable person, the proportionally safer she becomes.

Bad Science is telling us to keep healthy unmasked immune people away from the vulnerable, thereby insuring their death.

It is time to question this Bad Science, and stop being puppets to it.

Which 'science' would this be? The one you just instructed us to ignore? — Isaac

I am very much pro science. But science that disregards logic is Bad Science. Ignore Bad Science!

Bringing someone in from outside probably increases the chances that there will be more viruses, which will raise the probability of exposure. The more people we let in, the greater the probability. — T Clark

T Clark, check the science. It is extremely rare for the young (immune) man to replicate and cough up (or "bring in") mosquitoes into the room.

In other words, there is MORE RISK to the vulnerable woman if the man does NOT enter the room, than if the man does, and coughs up mosquitoes.

And likewise, there is MORE RISK to a drowning woman if the lifeguard does NOT enter the pool, than if he does, and accidentally drowns the woman.

*******
Bottom-line: there is risk in everything we do. The risk to the vulnerable woman is significantly LESS with the unclothed young man in the room, than without him.

The analogy between the woman in the room with a mosquito and her in a room with a virus is, to put it kindly, flawed. By which I mean stupid. If there were viruses in the room, they would be spread evenly throughout the room. Bringing someone else into the room, clothed or naked, would have no effect on the likelihood of the woman being exposed. — T Clark

Firstly, mosquitoes (and viruses) don't necessarily stand still in a room.

Secondly, my analogy is based on risk assessment (safety analysis). The more people that share a fixed risk the less the individual risk per person. This is a basic risk assessment calculation.

1 person in a room with 1 mosquito =1X risk per person.
2 people in a room with 1 mosquito = 0.5X (½) risk per person.
100 people in the room with 1 mosquito = 0.01X (1/100) risk per person.

Nils, these asymptomatic people are not necessarily "healthy immune" people. Science tells us that the healthier/stronger one's immune system, the less likely the replication (and subsequent spreading).

Bottom-line: there is LESS RISK to a vulnerable person surrounded by healthy unmasked immune people than not being surrounded by these healthy unmasked immune people.

Tobias, check the science. It is very rare for a healthy immune person to replicate and spread the virus.

Socially isolating and masking a healthy immune person (for fear of the rare chance that they may infect someone) is as logically irrational as banning ambulance drivers from responding to emergencies (for fear of the rare chance that they might get in an accident and kill someone). Exceptions don't dictate the rule.

Okay, although I absolutely disagree with your interesting viewpoint, I thank you for clearing up my understanding of your view. Thanks again, take care.

No, of course not. Surrounded by immune people the person's environment is being replenished with live viruses (albeit at a slow rate), surrounded by no one their environment will be devoid of live viruses within a matter of hours. — Isaac

So then you believe immune people provide no protective effect to the (vulnerable within the) herd?

So you don't believe in "herd immunity"? ...in other words, so you don't believe there is protective effect to the vulnerable by integrating immune people within the herd? — RJG

I just said, being surrounded by immune people is better than being surrounded by non-immune people. Are you having trouble reading? — Isaac

That wasn't my question. My question was not about immune versus non-immune, for that's a no brainer (we all agree immune is safer than not immune).

So you don't believe in "herd immunity"? ...in other words, so you don't believe there is protective effect to the vulnerable by integrating immune people within the herd?

So in general (disregarding this particular room example), do you believe that surrounding a vulnerable person with immune (vaccinated) people makes it 'more safe' or 'less safe' to this vulnerable person?

Isaac, so are you saying that the lady would be 'safer' if she were all alone (socially isolated/distanced), within this contaminated room?

Viruses multiply rapidly in people. — Isaac

Isaac, does this include healthy people with strong immune systems that have been vaccinated???

From what I've read, the amount of viral replication within the body is dependent on one's immune system. In other words, those with weak immune systems will replicate more than one with a marginal immune system, and those with strong healthy immune systems will have little to no replication.

Hey all, I know everyone enjoys the friendly bashing, but please try to answer this question seriously --

Firstly, imagine a fixed number of viral particles floating around in a given environment/room. Further imagine a 'masked' vulnerable un-vaccinated elderly lady (who was too vulnerable to receive the vaccine) is within this room. I think we all agree that this poor lady is at great risk here in this environment. So now imagine that an 'unmasked' healthy (w/ strong immune system) vaccinated young man walks into the same room as this poor lady. What happens now, is this lady now "more safe" or "less safe"?

A. She is definitely less safe -- because people who don't wear masks are highly likely to shed viral particles back into the environment, creating a greater viral load (and risk) to this poor lady.

B. She is potentially less safe -- because we don't know if this young man is a shedder or not.

C. She is twice as safe -- because the more people that share the same viral load within a given environment, the lower the proportional risk is to any individual within that environment.

D. She is more than twice as safe -- because this young man is maskless he is breathing in these viral particles, thereby reducing the total number of viral particles within the room. The longer he stays, the less contaminated the room, and the safer the lady becomes.

E. Both C & D



I would like to see where everybody stands on this. My vote is obviously E, ...but what say you?

The mechanism you describe seems very, very unlikely to me. I certainly won't accept it without evidence. — T Clark

It is simple statistics and simple logic.

1. The more people that share a viral load within a given environment, the less the risk to any individual within that environment.

2. People removing the viral contamination means there is less viral contamination; less risk.

There is no rocket science implied here, just straight simple logic.

It strikes me as extremely unlikely that a significant proportion of the viral load in the atmosphere would be removed by the lungs of people not wearing masks. — T Clark

Hi T Clark, to help better understand the profound effect (safety) that this would create, imagine a fixed number of viral particles floating around in a given environment. Further imagine Person A (who is a vulnerable non-vaccinated person; i.e. an elderly person who is too vulnerable to receive the vaccine). She is at great risk here in this environment, wouldn't you agree?

Now imagine a healthy vaccinated 'unmasked' Person B walks into the same room/environment as this poor lady.

Q. Is she now 'less safe' or 'safer'?
A. She is now at least 'twice' (if not much more) safer! Not only is the viral load (within this room) shared by another person, this other person is actually removing viral particles from the environment.

So, now imagine 5 healthy vaccinated 'unmasked' people (C, D, E, F, G) walk into the room. Can you now see the protective effects on our vulnerable population by unmasking our healthy vaccinated population?

Not once in your emotional rant did you refute my logic. -- can you? -- can you find a logical flaw in my words (other than just saying they are wrong)?

How about putting aside the emotion, ad hominems, and the irrationality (comitting an appeal-to-authority fallacy) and just simply point out the error you believe I am making.

Fair enough? Or are you not capable of a rational discussion? I'll wait...

Remember: Science that disregards logic is BAD Science.

To mask or not to mask. Here is my opinion on this topic:

***** Please take OFF your mask to save grandma! *****

--This message is intended for our 'healthy vaccinated' people. If you are vaccinated but have an underlying condition (susceptible to the ill effects of covid), then this message is NOT for you.--

Q. -- What happens when the virus encounters an 'unmasked' healthy vaccinated person?
A. -- The virus (viral particles) dies, and is permanently removed from the environment, thereby making the environment less virally contaminated and safer for vulnerable people.
C. -- This is a GOOD thing. Cleaning up (removing) the virus from the environment helps save the lives of those people that are too vulnerable to get vaccinated.

Q. -- What happens when the virus encounters a 'masked' healthy vaccinated person?
A. -- Nothing. The virus (viral particles) continues on its way, keeping the environment virally contaminated, thereby increasing the likelihood of "killing grandma", and prolonging and perpetuating this pandemic.

**********
Be rational. Don't adhere to the irrational game of "let the rare exceptions dictate the general rule". This only results in more harm than good.

Demanding that lifeguards no longer jump into the pool to save an infant who fell in the deep end for fear that the lifeguards themselves might drown (or accidentally drown the infant) is highly irrational, and results in more harm than good.

Demanding that ambulance drivers no longer respond to the home or scene of an accident for fear of getting in an accident themselves (or accidentally killing someone) is highly irrational, and results in more harm than good.

Demanding that healthy vaccinated people put on masks for fear of dying themselves (or killing someone else) is highly irrational, and results in more harm than good.

***********
What say you?

The Dangerous Irrationality of Masking our Vaccinated People

Masking and social distancing of our recently vaccinated population is dangerously counter productive. It prevents achieving herd immunity, thereby allowing the virus to continue to grow and mutate further, thereby killing more and more people.

Herd immunity is our ONLY means to stop this virus. No reputable scientist or medical expert disagrees. Social distancing does not stop this virus, nor does it actually slow it down any more than standing in the shade actually slows down the sun's UV rays. Social distancing only slows down the 'rate of infection', much like standing in the shade only slows down the 'rate of sunburns'. The science (empirical evidence) is very clear on this point, for after a year of masking and social distancing measures, the virus has not slowed at all, it has only grown and mutated into a bigger beast killing more people this year than it did last year.

Continued social distancing means continued virus growth and mutation, meaning more deaths next year than this year, and more deaths the following year than next year. Again, if we wish to stop this virus, then herd immunity, and not social distancing, is our ONLY solution. In this case, preventing our only solution only creates a bigger problem (many more deaths).

Herd immunity is achieved by saturating a given population of people (a "herd") with immune people. Immune people are those that have been vaccinated and/or those previous infected (and now have antibodies). Herd immunity works because immune people "break vectors"; they act as physical barriers to the virus spread, thereby protecting nearby vulnerable people. When a virus encounters an immune person, the virus is essentially stopped and removed from the environment (via the immune system of said immune person), which thereby prevents the virus from further transmission. Every virus that encounters (and dies within) an immune person is one less that can infect a vulnerable person.

Vaccination, by itself, cannot give us herd immunity. If immune people are kept away from the herd, then there can be no herd immunity protection. If we continue to mask and social distance our recently vaccinated people, then we have accomplished nothing, except to let the virus continue to grow and mutate into even more variants, some of which the previous vaccination will not protect against.

Keeping the "stoppers" of the virus from stopping the virus is a non-effective means of stopping the virus. Masking our vaccinated people only kills more people.

********************
We are fast approaching (if we have not already reached) a point-of-no-return. If we don't immediately un-mask every available healthy person soon, humans will be the next extinct creature on this planet.

This statement above is not meant to be "inflammatory". It is meant to be a "true dire WARNING". The extinction of humans within the next 5-10 years is an unavoidable logical consequence of the continued isolation (masking and social distancing) of healthy people.

Vaccines are USELESS if we don't let the vaccinated people (along with other healthy people) participate in achieving herd immunity, and start "removing" (stopping) this virus from our environment. Right now there is absolutely NOTHING stopping this virus from continued growth and mutation within the environment. And we can only "social distance" (run and hide) so far before the virus will ultimately overwhelm us.

So if herd immunity is our ONLY means to stop this virus, then what the hell are we waiting for??

********************
Note: contrary to bad science, those recently vaccinated (and those previously infected) can only help us achieve herd immunity ONLY IF we un-mask them and allow them to fully socialize. Otherwise we are just fooling ourselves; falsely believing that these vaccines will contribute to herd immunity.

If there is nothing to stop the virus, then nothing will stop the virus! ...it's as simple as that.

********************
Referring to the graphic below, without the "H" doing its part, then not only will the "V"'s be sitting ducks and turn into "I"'s (and then into dead people), but there will also be a lessening of available "H"'s to help fight this virus as it continues to grow and mutate. Logically the end is near if we don't wake up and realize our utter foolishness.

Healthy people wearing masks kills vulnerable people. Save a life, take off your mask.

The ultimate idiocracy of our current covid policy is keeping those recently vaccinated continually masked and social distancing.

If we don't un-mask our healthy immune people and let them return to full time socializing to participate in achieving herd immunity, then the virus will only grow and continue to mutate (into potentially more deadly strains), resulting in many more massive deaths.

******************
P1. Herd immunity is the only way to stop this virus. Virtually every medical expert/scientist agree.

P2. We achieve herd immunity by allowing our healthy immune people (i.e. our recently vaccinated and previously infected who now have protective antibodies) to mingle back INTO the herd.

C1. BUT therefore, if we keep these healthy immune people AWAY from the herd by masking and social distancing them, then we cannot achieve herd immunity.

P3. AND if we don't start stopping this virus via herd immunity, then the virus will only continue to grow and mutate.

C2. AND therefore, if we still keep preventing herd immunity by continuing to mask and socially distance our healthy immune people away from the herd, then WE ALL DIE.

IT'S AS SIMPLE AS THAT.

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

If you have been recently vaccinated, or were previously infected, then take off the damn mask and start socializing asap! Start participating in achieving herd immunity. Keeping our healthy immune people from the herd, only allows the virus to continue to grow and mutate.

For those of you, like InPitzotl, that have difficulty in understanding the difference between "social distancing" and "herd immunity", I have attached a graphic that makes this difference very clear.

Bottom-line: herd immunity gives protection by moving healthy immune closer into a herd, and NOT by "distancing" them AWAY from the herd.

If, as InPitzotl and some of you others seem to believe, the only role of the immune person in achieving herd immunity is to break vectors of possible virus transmission (i.e. not get infected and transmit the virus back into the environment) then we can easily protect every vulnerable person in our country.

So here's the plan:

1. We can do this state by state (or maybe city by city, or community by community). For example, let's take all the immune people in Oklahoma and ship them Arizona, that way we now have 100% certainty that these immune Oklahoman's, that now are in Arizona, will not shed any virus whatsoever back into Oklahoma. Now that we have eliminated all these previously potential viral vectors (routes), then, according to InPitzotl and others, we should now have achieved herd immunity in Oklahoma. All the vulnerable people in Oklahoma are now miraculously protected!

2. The immune Oklahoman's in Arizona can now return back to Oklahoma, and now everyone in Oklahoma is immune.

3. Repeat the above process for each of the other states until our entire country is covid free.

Problem solved!

*********************
If you can't tell, I'm just being facetious. You can't get herd immunity by "breaking vectors"! -- Herd immunity relies on "making vectors", not breaking them. Without immune people being in close proximity to the rest of the herd, there can be no protection to the herd. The further apart immune people get away from the herd, the less the protection.

When one talks of "breaking vectors" they are talking about "social distancing", which is just the opposite of herd immunity. There can be no herd immunity if the immune separate and isolate from the herd.

InPitzotl, you are very disingenuous. You seem to be more interested in finding ways to insult than in giving a straight answer.

I'll try again:

Let's assume the herd immunity threshold value is 60%. This means that 60 immune people in a community somehow provide immunity protection over the other 40 vulnerable people within that same community.

And so I ask you how this "protection" is accomplished. And you say, all we need to do is not let these immune people shed virus back into the environment, and we get the protective effect to the other 40 vulnerable people. In fact you agree that we could just replace these 60 immune people with statues or rocks (who can't shed virus back into the environment) and we would still get the "protection" to this vulnerable people.

So now I ask -- how do these 60 statues provide protection over the 40 vulnerable people in the community?

In other words, if a virus found its way into this community of now 100% vulnerable people, what would protect them? What would protect one person from getting infected, and then shed many more viruses back into this community, until they all got infected and all died. Without immune people in the mix, what is protecting them????

...and your answer is "distance"? ...do we need to distance these statues to a remote island? ...will that then magically protect the 40 vulnerable people?

I think you need to look in the mirror, and take a closer look at your own words:

"You would get tons more respect here admitting when you're wrong than this act of trying to make excuses for your claims. — InPitzotl

...it is good advice for yourself.

So again, our discussion is done, as I prefer not to debate with dishonest, disingenuous people. Have a good day.

Sorry InPitzotl, this (your reply) comes across as a creative "non-answer" to me.

Either you know how a community of 100% vulnerable can be protected (in the absence of immune people) or you don't. How can herd immunity work if there are only vulnerable people in the herd? Where's the herd immunity protective effect coming from?

Its just a simple question. A simple sentence is all thats needed, I don't need a micro detailed account.

We obviously disagree over the CDC's usage of "person-to-person" in their definition of herd immunity. And just because I disagree with this, does not mean that I necessarily disagree with everything else the CDC says (...as I'm sure you know, that would imply another logical fallacy).

*************
Okay, so what about this, how do we provide protection to vulnerable people if there are no healthy people in the same environment?

If this were true, then we could simply replace these healthy immune people with statues or rocks… — Roger Gregoire

You could. — InPitzotl

But if you could, then what would be left to provide the protective effect to the vulnerable?

In other words, if a virus found its way into this community of now 100% vulnerable people, what would protect them? What would protect one person from getting infected, and then shed many more viruses back into this community, until they all got infected and all died.

Without immune people in the mix, what is protecting them????

1. In general, the more sick (very symptomatic) one is, the weaker their immune system is to fighting off the infection. And the weaker their immune system is to fighting off the infection, the greater the viral replication. — Roger Gregoire

This is not correct. Ones immunity is not a “one size fits all” phenomenon. Whether someone’s immune system is good or not some people (due to specific genes) are more susceptible to infection via the spike protein of coronavirus. — Benj96

The key phrase above is "In general". Rare exceptions do happen.

Do you also believe that immune people (via vaccination or past infection) also shed more virus back into the environment than they destroy? ...or is it vice versa?

Do you believe, in general, those with strong (fast responding) immune systems shed less virus back into the environment than those with weak (slow responding) immune systems?

...spread from person to person… — CDC

This is an example of bad science (...science that disregards logic).

This virus does NOT spread from "person-to-person", it spreads from environment-to-person. People get infected from being in contaminated environments (i.e. from breathing in airborne virus, from viruses on surfaces being transferred by hand to mouth/nose, etc). People's respiratory systems are NOT directly connected to one another.

This is an IMPORTANT distinction that changes the mathematics involved in calculating probabilities and risk.

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

You are arguing against the CDC — InPitzotl

Yes, if they claim that the virus transmits "person-to-person", then logically, they are wrong. Making an "appeal-to-authority" (a logical fallacy) is an irrational means of arguing; has no logical basis. Even those in authority can be logically wrong.

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

If this were true, then we could simply replace these healthy immune people with statues or rocks… — Roger Gregoire

You could. — InPitzotl

But if you could, then what would be left to provide the protective effect to the vulnerable?

In other words, if a virus found its way into this community of now 100% vulnerable people, what would protect them? What would protect one person from getting infected, and then shed many more viruses back into this community, until they all got infected and all died.

Without immune people in the mix, what is protecting them????

Let's review, again:

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. — InPitzotl

This is Non-Truth #1. This virus does not spread from "person-to-person", it spreads from environment-to-person. People get infected from being in contaminated environments (i.e. from breathing in airborne virus, from viruses on surfaces being transferred by hand to mouth/nose, etc). People's respiratory systems are NOT directly connected to one anther's.

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

The spread from person to person is likely (ref next underlines) in proportion to the likelihood that potential persons are in the extended infection range (ref prior post). — InPitzotl

Again, this virus does NOT spread from "person-to-person". This is an IMPORTANT distinction that changes the mathematics involved in calculating probabilities and risk. The protective effect of herd immunity is a probability equation based on "density" (the viral density per person within a given environment) and not based on "distance" ("breaking vectors" between person-to-person).

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

Well, there is indeed a real protective effect demonstrated by this program based on breaking vectors. — InPitzotl

...if your program is indeed based on "breaking vectors", then it is based on "social distancing" which is just the opposite of herd immunity. — Roger Gregoire

It's really weird that you speculate about what the program might be doing, always incorrectly… — 'InPitzotl"

There was no "speculation" on my part. You were the one that said it was "based on breaking vectors", not me.

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

Rather, people who are immune by this model simply don't spread the infection. That is what breaks the vector chains. — InPitzotl

This is not what creates the "protective effect" of herd immunity. Herd immunity is NOT based on "immune people not spreading the infection", it is about immune people being in the same environment as vulnerable people so as to reduce the overall "density" of the virus per person. Refer back to my mosquito illustration (in Non-Truth #3) to grasp how this works.

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

They don't move closer, they don't vacuum up infections, they don't move further apart... they simply don't get infected and therefore can't spread infections. — InPitzotl

If this were true, then we could simply replace these healthy immune people with statues or rocks, (or ship them all off to a remote island) and this would somehow still provide protection to the vulnerable. Thereby leaving the population mix in that environment at 0%/100% (healthy/vulnerable).

But herd immunity does not work that way. If we removed the healthy people from the environment, then the protective effect to the vulnerable disappears. Without at least 60% of the herd being immune and present in the environment (WITH the vulnerable) we can't transfer the total immunity protection over to the other vulnerable 40%.

And the only way we can get this "protective effect" relative to the % of healthy people within a given environment is by moving healthy people CLOSER to vulnerable people (and not by "breaking vectors between person-to-person"). And you can calculate this "protective effect" by using "density" equations as shown in the mosquito illustration under Non-Truth #3.

This is why I think governments are simply resorting to simpler "solutions" (restrictions and lockdowns) that are actually not as effective. Administering complex social policy is in fact well very complex and governments tend to avoid complex solutions. — dazed

Yes the government usually makes a mess of things. But if we don't soon implement a strategic (or "surgical") herd immunity approach, then we will only continue causing more harm than good, such that we can't recover from.

I think the best government policy to save the most amount people is to require:

1) stricter social distancing on those considered vulnerable, or most-at-risk (with the government providing a clear definition of what "vulnerable" means), and

2) make social distancing voluntary for those that are healthy (with the government again providing a clear definition of what "healthy" means).

This will get us quickly to the path of herd immunity, with minimal risk to our vulnerable population.

Treating these different groups of people the same, only makes matter worse. It is insufficient for vulnerable people, and it prevents any protective effect (to the vulnerable) that we would normally otherwise get if we allowed healthy people to participate in achieving herd immunity.

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

Well, there is indeed a real protective effect demonstrated by this program based on breaking vectors. — InPitzotl

Your program only shows the protective effects of social distancing, not herd immunity. if your program is indeed based on "breaking vectors", then it is based on "social distancing" which is just the opposite of herd immunity. Herd immunity requires "making vectors", not "breaking" them; it requires the joining/mixing of healthy and vulnerable people together to achieve a protective effect called herd immunity.

Social distancing (hiding) is just a stall tactic until we implement herd immunity. We can't "social distance" our way out of this mess. Herd immunity is our ONLY way out.