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

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? — Roger Gregoire

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

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

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

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). — InPitzotl

First error. People don't get infected from other people. They get infected by being in a contaminated environment. The starting condition (inputs) of your model is flawed, which results in unreliable results. GIGO (garbage in = garbage out).

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

Refer to the running simulation for a demonstration of the protective effect; note that there's none in these runs in all scenarios up to 50% vaccination; at 80% you see some effect; at 95% more.

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)? In other words, what is P2? How do healthy people create herd immunity in your model? Is your equation a function of "distance" or "density"?

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

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. — Roger Gregoire

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. — Isaac

Sorry Isaac, but this is "bad science" (note: science that disregards logic = bad science). Herd immunity is not achieved by "distancing" or isolating healthy people away from the virus. It is about "density", not "distance".

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.

Or if we want to know the infection rate to vulnerable people then: Virus/Total People (within a given environment) * Vulnerable People/Total People (within the same environment) = % of infection to vulnerable people.

Herd immunity is achieved by adding healthy people to a given contaminated environment with vulnerable people so as to reduce the "density" of the virus exposure to the individual vulnerable person. To help illustrate my point:

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 die if bitten by a mosquito. So the odds of a vulnerable person dying from a mosquito bite is 5% (10 mosquitos / 100 total people) = 10%, and (50 vulnerable people / 100 total people) = 50%, and so 10% * 50% = 5%, and so 5% * 50 vulnerable people = 2.5 dead people.

ISAAC'S THEORY: If we remove the healthy people from the environment, then we will reach herd immunity and protect and save the vulnerable people.

Okay, let's try Isaac's theory -- let's remove the 50 healthy people from the room. So the odds of a vulnerable person dying from a mosquito bite is 20%. (10 mosquitos / 50 total people) = 20%, and (50 vulnerable people / 50 total people) = 100%, and so 20% * 100% = 20%, and so 20% * 50 vulnerable people = 10 dead people.

BUSTED: Isaac KILLS 4 times more people.

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

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 InPitzotl's theory -- let's put the 50 healthy people in mosquito proof gunny sacks, to prevent them from getting bit. So the odds of a vulnerable person dying from a mosquito bite is 20%. (10 mosquitos / 50 total exposed people) = 20%, and (50 vulnerable people / 50 total exposed people) = 100%, and so 20% * 100% = 20%, and so 20% * 50 vulnerable people = 10 dead people.

BUSTED: InPitzotl KILLS 4 times more people.

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

ROGER'S THEORY #1: If we add more healthy people (including those who were previously infected and those who were recently vaccinated) to contaminated environments then we will reach herd immunity and protect and save the vulnerable people.

Okay, let's try Roger's theory #1 -- let's add 100 more healthy people into the room. So the odds of a vulnerable person dying from a mosquito bite is 1.25%. (10 mosquitos / 200 total people) = 5%, and (50 vulnerable people / 200 total people) = 25%, and so 5% * 25% = 1.25%, and so 1.25% * 50 vulnerable people = 0.6 dead people.

SUCCESS: Roger #1 SAVES 4 times more people.

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

ROGER'S THEORY #2: 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.

Okay, let's try Roger's theory #2 -- let's have the 50 healthy people strip down naked to expose 10 times more surface area to be bitten by the mosquitos, and then put the excess clothing around the vulnerable people to give them an extra layer of protection. So the odds of a vulnerable person dying from a mosquito bite is ~0%. (10 mosquitos / 100 total people) = 10%, and (0 vulnerable people / 50 total exposed people) = 0%, and so 10% * 0% = ~0%, and so 0% * 50 vulnerable people = 0.0 dead people.

SUCCESS: Roger #2 SAVES virtually ALL the vulnerable people.

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

CONCLUSION:
Social distancing of healthy people KILL more vulnerable lives than it saves. We therefore should immediately change course, and demand that all healthy people rip off their masks and start socializing immediately!

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

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

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.

...I'll wait.

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

No problem with my logic. If my premises are true, then sickness is irrelevant. And if sickness is irrelevant, then your statement is false. It's as simple as that.

It is infections/vaccinations that determine herd immunity, ...not sickness.

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

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

C2 follows from C1

C1 says "sickness is irrelevant".
C2 says any claim that "sickness is relevant", is therefore false.

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

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). — InPitzotl

Your coding sidesteps the issue (and "begs-the-question"). The question is how/why herd immunity works in the first place. Simply standing there and not getting infected does not logically cut it. 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.

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). Standing around and "not getting infected" does not logically cut it (is wholly irrational).

Firstly, and just to give you a heads up, I am very well versed in logical fallacies. So your constant throwing of the names of logical fallacies up against the wall (hoping for something to stick) without showing the supporting logic don't impress me much. You may fool (and sound good to) some people, but not to me, or to others that understand logical analysis. I view this type of rhetoric on par with "well, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullsh*t". This type of rhetoric is a very disingenuous (and dishonest) style of debate/discussion imo.

Here is a perfect example of this, in what I see in many of your responses...

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. — 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

I'm not sure if you are intentionally trying to be funny or sarcastic, or if you truly do not see the utter hypocrisy of your response (committing a "red herring fallacy" while accusing someone of a red herring fallacy).

How about we logically evaluate my words and your response via logical syllogisms to better see where the true "irrationality" (aka the "bullsh*t) lies?

Roger's logic:
P1. Many infected people don't get sick; are asymptomatic.
P2. Many vaccinated people also don't get sick.
P3. We gain herd immunity through infected and/or vaccinated people.
C1. Therefore, it is false that "everyone must get sick to gain herd immunity".
C2. Therefore, InPitzotl's statement "getting everyone sick will lead to herd immunity" is logically false.

InPitzotl's response:
P1. If a sore gets infected by bacteria, I don't get sick either.
P2. But the bacteria grows.
C1. Therefore, your [Roger's] 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.

Instead of disproving Roger's logic, you instead hypocritically cast out a "red herring" accusation in your conclusion (C1) so as to cover your own fallacious "red herring" attempt, ...again, either you knew it and were just trying to be sarcastic/funny, or you didn't know it, and hypocritically committed the same fallacy you were accusing Roger of. ...it's one or the other?

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, 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. — InPitzotl

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? ...strange, but it is an interesting part of debate and discussion. Anyways, I'll give a couple of examples, of what I see, as your recent "irrational" statements, both of which are logically false:

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 that very many people are asymptomatic (do not get sick) when infected, and very many people also do not get sick when vaccinated.


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

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

Imagine having a room (contaminated with covid virus) 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. Hurray! The vulnerable are now protected!

Or better yet, we could create herd immunity on a larger scale by shipping all the healthy people living 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) back into the environment, ...and NOT because they are just standing there "not getting infected" within a crowd (herd) of people.

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

To conclude:

The more healthy immune people we mix back into society, the greater the protective effect to the vulnerable. Our current misguided policy of masking and social distancing our 'healthy' population only allows the virus to continue to grow and mutate into new viruses, and ultimately destroy us all.

Keeping the fire extinguishers away from the fire for fear they may get burnt or they may contribute to the fire is WHOLLY IRRATIONAL. For it only allows the fire to grow, spread, and spurn new wildfires (new mutations). Once the fire(s) gets to a certain size (more than the extinguishing capability of the extinguishers) then the fire(s) are irreversible, we all perish.

This is exactly what we are doing with this covid-19 virus. We are letting it grow and mutate by keeping healthy people (the fire extinguishers) hidden and away from the fire (social distancing away from the virus). With nothing to stop the virus, the virus can only grow and mutate. Note: Contrary to popular propaganda - Hiding (social distancing) from the virus is NOT "stopping" or "slowing" the virus.

Contrary to the popular indoctrinated mantra ("Social Distancing Saves Lives"), the reality of the situation is that "Social Distancing KILLS".

If we don't wake up and realize this very soon, and let the healthy people participate in mass socialization (stop the masking and social distancing), then the point-of-no-return is only a few months away (assuming we haven't already reached it). And next year at this time will be at least 2X worse, and the following year at least 4X worse, etc until there are none of us humans around, ...seriously.

Note: Vaccines by themselves cannot save us as we can never develop them fast enough to keep up with the latest mutations being spawned. Herd immunity is the ONLY option we got, and the longer we wait to implement it, the lower probability of winning this war; as the available size of our army (healthy people) continually diminishes while our enemy's army (virus) continually grows. And soon we will be outnumbered. Natural selection (survival of the fittest) will officially deem the virus as the winner.

Rant over. Time to wake up everyone.

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

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

Virtually all reputable medical scientists on this planet (even Dr. Fauci) agree that #1 is true. They also agree that herd immunity is our ONLY means to stop this virus.

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

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

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

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

Is the Mayo Clinic also "misguided"?

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

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

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.

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

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

So I suppose that you are also against ambulance drivers responding to traffic accidents because they themselves might get into a traffic accident?

So I suppose that you are also against good healthy swimmers from jumping into the deep end of the pool to save a vulnerable non-swimmer toddler, because they (good swimmers) might drown?

You seem to think that rare exceptions should dictate the general rule, whereas I don't. Rare exceptions are just rare exceptions.

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

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

You seem to be playing both sides of the fence here. Please clarify, which is it:

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

Which is it? If herd immunity is our ONLY solution to saving vulnerable people, then what are we waiting for? Is it the fear that some of these vulnerable people might die? - so we should then refuse to save all the rest of them? ...is this the logic being used?

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, to add the ultimate insult to injury, now that we have a vaccine, we are hearing calls from our "medical experts" to keep hiding (social distancing) because "who knows, this vaccine may not protect against the new mutations". Wow, now we are guaranteed to self-destruct the human race.

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.

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

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.

**********

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

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

If you are saying - a 'vulnerable' infected person contaminates (sheds) lots of virus, and therefore the environment around them is contaminated. - then yes, I agree, we need to keep vulnerable people away from these 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.

**********

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

...which is the same thing! 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.

***********

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

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

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

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

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 they shed) then the contamination in the environment will only continue to grow and become more dangerous. If we don't vacuum our rug, our rug can only get dirtier (not cleaner).

**********

And one more thing, ...thanks InPitzotl for the refreshingly civil discussion, ...which is rarely seen these days.

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

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

Although, if we didn't social distance at all, then we would have less total deaths than we have now, BUT strategic herd immunity (where only the healthy are intentionally exposed) will save significantly more lives than general herd immunity (where everyone is intentionally exposed).

Strategic herd immunity saves the most lives.
General herd immunity saves more lives than the social distancing of everyone.
Social distancing everyone (including the healthy) only maximizes deaths.

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

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

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.

***********

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

Correct. In fact, USA and UK (WITH social distancing), and despite having the world's best health systems in the world, have the greatest deaths per capita on this planet and far exceed Sweden deaths per capita (with no or little social distancing).

In other words, empirical data shows us that the more social distancing, the greater the deaths. But our leaders are still in denial, and want to impose more social distancing, and more deaths. Go figure!

Getting everyone sick accomplishes herd immunity… — InPitzotl

This is blatantly false.

***********

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

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.

Remember: contrary to the popular propaganda that the media feeds us, people don't actually infect other people. People get infected from the environment they are in. 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.

***********

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

Not quite. It only grows in number if it replicates and sheds back into the environment.

***********

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

Agreed.

***********

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

Not so. The amount of replication is dependent on the state of ones immune system. Healthy immune systems kill the virus and any attempted replications.

***********

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

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

Correct.

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

Correct again.

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. — InPitzotl

Agreed. We have much more efficient ways of getting rid of smoke and dust.

And so what is your point???

Are you trying to imply that we shouldn't try to stop this virus through herd immunity? ...do you have a better way?

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

TRUE. For every virus that is killed by a healthy immune person, means one less virus for a vulnerable person to be potentially exposed to. Healthy immune people create a protective effect. Social distancing of our healthy people, only means that there will be more viruses in the environment to kill our vulnerable population.

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

1. Minimize the number of sick people. — InPitzotl

How do you propose minimizing the total number of sick people? Our current social distancing efforts only seem to be back firing on us.

**********

2. Maximize immunity through vaccination. — InPitzotl

Agreed, with one caveat. If you demand these recently vaccinated people to continue social distancing then you've accomplished nothing. We need all hands on deck. For herd immunity to work, healthy immune people (including recently vaccinated) MUST take off the masks and start socializing, otherwise, we have no way of stopping or slowing the virus. Remember: the ONLY thing that stops this virus is herd immunity, so why are we preventing it with more social distancing??? Go figure!

***********

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

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

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. Hiding (aka "social distancing") is NOT a solution.

We have been brainwashed into believing the mantra "social distancing saves lives", which is true for vulnerable people, but absolutely false for healthy people. Social distancing our entire population as if there were only one segment (and not two segments that need to be treated differently) is what is causing the death rate per capita to soar.

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

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

FALSE. Strategic herd immunity REDUCES the total number of viruses, not "increases". If it truly increased the total number of viruses then there would be no protective effect whatsoever. Then herd immunity would just be a fairy tale (a non-truth).

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

**********

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

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

FALSE. Most healthy people are asymptomatic. Their strong immune systems attack and kill the virus and any attempted viral replications, resulting in no manifested physical symptoms.

On the other hand, those with weaker immune systems, have greater viral replications which do manifest into physical symptoms and sickness. In general, physical symptoms are proportional to the replication rate.

***********

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

FALSE. "Sickness" is a reflection of physical symptoms. Physical symptoms are a reflection of viral replications. Healthy immune systems that attack and kill an invading virus (and replications) show no symptoms, but yet develops a "memory" of this virus and develops antibodies to help fight against any future attacks.

**********

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

TRUE. For every virus that is killed by a healthy immune person, means one less virus for a vulnerable person to be potentially exposed to. Healthy immune people create a protective effect. Social distancing of our healthy people, only means that there will be more viruses in the environment to kill our vulnerable population.

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

Who said anything about infecting "EVERYONE"???

We only expose the HEALTHY to covid, not the vulnerable!!! The healthy don't die of exposure to covid, they gain immunity. This is referred to as "strategic herd immunity".

The vulnerable keep social distancing (or better yet quarantine) until the healthy bring home the immunity (protective effect) for everyone. We could virtually end this virus in 4 weeks if we didn't keep making excuses to keep the healthy from acquiring herd immunity that would protect the vulnerable.

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

I am only seeing excuses for 'inaction'.

Your so-called "empirical data" is nothing but cherry picking certain facts to create a scary story. Look at the actual data itself of those that have actually died. The plot and ending of most of these scary stories (your fear mongering article links) end with "we shouldn't do something to stop this virus, because we never know, something really bad might happen". Well, if we don't do something, then we are guaranteed something really bad will happen. No guessing there!

In seems that you are promoting that we do nothing to stop this virus. It seems that you believe if we all hide long enough it will somehow go away. If you are anti-herd immunity, then how do you propose we stop this virus from killing more and more of our vulnerable people???

We need to stop making excuses out of fear, and start doing something that will save people.

"Atlas has argued that, if herd immunity is an inevitable destination, we should perhaps put our foot on the accelerator."

Scott Atlas is absolutely correct. Look, there is only one way to end (or slow down) this virus and that is via herd immunity. I don't know of anyone that disputes this. 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). And again, look at the actual statistics, and not these specialized articles that get attention because of the fear they create. 99.1% of all deaths were of people that had at least one known underlying condition. And young people can be unhealthy too, so this is not necessarily about "age", it is more about the condition of one's immune system.

We have no choice. We either act now, or the party's over.

The fear to act (to implement strategic herd immunity) will ultimately doom us all, the virus can only get worse, we will never have a BETTER time to implement herd immunity than right now.

These articles that you link only further increase the "fear mongering" and the motivation to do NOTHING, except to watch ourselves destroy ourselves.

Empirical data tells us otherwise. Contrary to the "fear mongering" media, of the over 2 million worldwide covid deaths so far, 99.1% had at least one known underlying condition. It is not necessarily about "age", young people can be unhealthy too.

In virtually all cases, healthy people don't die from covid-19.

How about we just cut to the chase? Let's put aside your condescending remarks and identify the root of our disagreement, ...unless of course, you have no real sincere intent of trying to understand a view different than yours, ...and if this is the case, then 'continue away' with your childish derogatory comments, which only exposes your hypocritical disingenuousness.

The root of our disagreement, as I see it, is:

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.

...is this correct?

Jack, I absolutely agree with you. ...and if we continue following the same bad advice (based on bad science), then the worst is yet to come.

(...for then each year will be exponentially worse than the previous, ...which will culminate in the extinction of all humans on this planet).

The time to wake up is now.

InPitzotl, you are missing the point. If you view this planet as a singular body, where part of it was being invaded by an infection, what would you do to stop it from killing this planet?

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!!!

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

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. — InPitzotl

No, this would NOT "increase virus growth". There would be NO NET virus growth, but instead only a reduction. If the healthy population destroys more of the virus than it spreads, then the net effect is a REDUCTION of the virus.

Remember: contrary to the "fear mongering" media, healthy people don't die of covid (at least not yet, but if we let the virus continue to mutate, then all bets are off). Of all the people on this planet that have died so far, 99.1% were the vulnerable; had weak or poor immune systems; had at least one known underlying condition. In virtually all cases, those with healthy immune systems don't die of covid, they only gain immunity when infected with the virus. These healthy people are our firefighters; the solution that we are intentionally keeping away from the fire because of bad science perpetuated by fear mongering. By social distancing our healthy population, we are ultimately destroying ourselves, and soon it will be too late to realize our foolishness.

***********

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

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

No, I am simple saying that keeping (hiding; social distancing away) our fire fighters away from a fire, does not put it out, ...it only makes the fire grow larger.

**********

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

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

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. And likewise, no reputable scientist would ever recommend we fight an infection to a segment of this planet, by keeping the healthy segment away from the infection.

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

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

YES, correct!!! ...and how do you stop an infection??? ...do you keep your "healthy" cells; white blood cells away from it? ...NO! ...for that would mean certain death, as infections only spread. If you don't stop the infection, then you die. It is as simple as that.

In conclusion:

If we continue to "social distance" our healthy population (including those recently vaccinated, and those previously infected (now immune)), then all human life on this planet will be extinguished within 5-10 years. Next year at this time, there will be at least 2X more deaths

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.

Our vaccinations are absolutely useless if we don't allow the vaccinated to participate in stopping this fire.

- Keeping firefighters away from a fire does not stop the fire, it only allows the fire to grow.
- Keeping healthy white blood cells away from an infection does stop the infection, ...it only insures certain death to the body.

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. — Echarmion

Ech, I think we agree here. It is those with weak and compromised immune systems that we need to worry about. Those with healthy immune systems will be just fine.

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

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

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

Use healthy people (with healthy immune systems) AND recently vaccinated people AND recently infected (now immune) people. Keeping these people hidden is counter productive. Remember: healthy people don't die of covid. (check the science data if you don't believe me).

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

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

Absolutely False. — Roger Gregoire

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

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

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

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

P1. Vulnerable people die when exposed to covid.
P2. Healthy people gain immunity when exposed to covid.
P3. The more healthy immune people out in society, the greater the protective effect to the vulnerable.
C1. Therefore, exposing more "healthy" people to the virus results in less deaths of vulnerable people.

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

You are missing the point.

1. Healthy immune people kill more virus than they spread.
2. Vulnerable people spread more virus than than they kill.

1. Fire extinguishers put out more fire than they create.
2. Gasoline creates more fire than it extinguishes.

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

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

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

Not so. Healthy immune systems destroy infected cells (via white blood cells; leukocytes) and prevent virus replications (via interferon proteins).

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

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

Absolutely False.

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

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

Agreed. Good so far.

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

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

Okay I'm with you so far.

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

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. — InPitzotl

I'm not sure I follow. The point is that if you have a room that contains a fixed amount of airborne covid virus, and you send in a group of healthy immune people to breathe the air for a given amount of time, and then you send these people out of the room, the room would then have lesser amount of covid virus. The room is now cleaner, ready for uninfected vulnerable people to use. It's as if the healthy immune people were sponges that absorbed and removed the virus.

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

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

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. — InPitzotl

I think I understand what you are getting at, but it is not the correct view (imo). Here is my take - For instance, and just for sake of discussion, let's say that vulnerable people contribute 100 replicated virus bugs per hour into the environment while healthy people eat (destroy) a net of 25 of these bugs per hour (i.e. they eat 30 bugs but they emit 5 of them while doing so, thereby giving a net of -25). If this is so, then we are doomed; it is a losing battle; more bugs are being emitted/shedded into the environment than is being removed (...which so happens to represent our reality today!).

So now, how do we remove more than we emit? Answer: Get the vulnerable people out of the environment (into quarantine) and release and speed up as many of the healthy people to gobble up, as fast as they can, all the bugs that are out there, ...the sooner we do this, the sooner life can return to normal.

But unfortunately, bad science is telling us to slow down both groups, under the false belief that we will see improvement. And because things are only getting worse, they (bad science) are now telling us to slow everybody down even more (more socially distancing), and to make matters worse, they are telling the recently immunized population to keep hiding (slow down; continue social distancing). All this guarantees that the rate of bug increase will soon surpass the rate that healthy people can eat these bugs. ...not only that but the group of healthy people continually get smaller (as the virus continually mutates), while the number of bugs increase.

Again, this is like holding back the fire extinguisher for fear it may add to the fire. The longer we wait, the fire extinguisher gets smaller while the fire grows larger. The point-of-no-return is when there is not enough extinguisher material to put out the fire. Then we will be the extinguished.

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

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.

**********

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

Ha! ...I so agree. The healthy immune human could, as you say, rub their bodies, and sniff and lick the equipment in an attempt to decontaminate it, but I agree, there are much more effective ways to do this.

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.

***********

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

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.

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.

***********

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

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

Simple logic tells us. Unless you are implying that all our respiratory systems are directly connected to each other, then for a virus to leave one person's respiratory system and enter another person's respiratory system, it must pass through some medium, or some causal chain of contact.

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

Correct. People either contribute to the contamination or they help remove the contamination. Those that are immune (those with healthy immune systems attack and kill the virus and its replications) do not contribute to the contamination (they remove more than they add). Without these people (removers of the virus) there could be no 'herd immunity' to protect the vulnerable.

**********

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

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

**********

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. — InPitzotl

So then, do you also agree that vulnerable people shed more than immune people? And do you also agree that relatively speaking, vulnerable people are 'Contributors' and immune people are 'Removers'?

And just so I understand your view, do you also disagree with this oversimplified logic:

P1. Vulnerable people die when exposed to covid.
P2. Healthy people gain immunity when exposed to covid.
P3. The more healthy immune people out in society, the greater the protective effect to the vulnerable.
C1. Therefore, exposing more "healthy" people to the virus results in less deaths of vulnerable people.

Exposing healthy people automatically also exposes vulnerable people. — Echarmion

Not so. This is the Mistake #2 (referred to in the OP analogy). Firstly, vulnerable people catch the virus by exposing themselves to contaminated environments and surfaces (and not necessarily 'directly' from other people). And depending on one's immune system, people are either 'Contributors' to the contamination or they are 'Removers' of the contamination.

In other words, once a virus infects a host, it begins to replicate itself. Those with healthy immune systems attack and kill these replications. Those with weak immune systems are unable to attack and kill these replications. The extent of the replications typically manifest itself as variations in physical symptoms.

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.

We are being led to falsely believe (and irrationally fear) that healthy people shed the virus on par with vulnerable people. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fear of catching the virus from a healthy person is precisely what is allowing the virus to grow larger and kill MORE people.

Our refusal to use a fire extinguisher, for fear that it might add to the fire, only makes the fire grow larger.

Our refusal to let good swimmers in the pool for fear that they may accidentally drown non-swimmers, only increases the number of non-swimmer drownings.

And again:
P1. Vulnerable people die when exposed to covid.
P2. Healthy people gain immunity when exposed to covid.
P3. The more healthy immune people out in society, the greater the protective effect to the vulnerable.
C1. Therefore, exposing more "healthy" people to the virus results in less deaths of vulnerable people.

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

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:

P1. Vulnerable people die when exposed to covid.
P2. Healthy people gain immunity when exposed to covid.
P3. The more healthy immune people out in society, the greater the protective effect to the vulnerable.
C1. Therefore, exposing more "healthy" people to the virus results in less deaths of vulnerable people.

And another way to look at it:
The more life guards (healthy swimmers) in the pool, the less drownings of the non-swimmers.

Bottom-line -- I think we both agree that the more healthy immune people out there in society the more protective effect we get, and the safer are our vulnerable people.

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

Okay, and to follow along and translate using the OP analogy --- all cars have good tread (strong immune systems; healthy) or bald tires (weak immune systems; vulnerable).

********

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

1. Cars with bald tires, get punctured (die) when encountering tacks on the highway (covid in society).
2. Cars with good tire tread crush tacks (kill covid virus) and get stronger when on the highway (out in society).
3. Cars that have their tires retreaded (vaccinated) can also crush tacks that they encounter on the highway.

********

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

State A - All cars start with no tacks (uninfected) in their tires.
State B - All cars can be infected with tacks, if exposed to tacks on the highway.

********

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

Now here is where we reach the disconnect in your argument. 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.

For example, a grocery store has 100's of people walking around exhaling moisturized air through ineffective masks. The virus emitted from some of these people can linger and mix in the surrounding air for up to one hour, and upon landing, can live on cardboard cereal boxes (and other food items) for up to 7 days. Transmission can also be made from touching one's mouth, nose, or eyes, and then picking up a food item to read its nutrition information, and another person comes along and touches the same food item and then rubs their eye, etc etc. Bottom-line, the covid virus is all over the place, much like tacks on a highway.

- Some people are 'contributors' (shedder/spreaders) of the virus, and some people are 'removers' of the virus (healthy immune systems attack and kill the virus when it invades the body of healthy immune people). Some people shed more than they remove (those with bald tires), and some people remove more than they shed (those with healthy strong tread). We need those with bald tires to stay in the garage, while those with strong tread run freely all over the highway killing/removing the tacks/virus.

Keeping healthy people "socially distanced" is as irrational as keeping lifeguards away from the swimming pool, or keeping the fire extinguisher away from the fire.

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. — Echarmion

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. Herd immunity threshold in this case is 60%

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.

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

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

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

Not so.
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).

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

I think you meant to say "with" and not "without". And yes, every life is important. The goal is to save as many lives as possible.

Of all 2,077,038 people that have died of covid on this planet so far, 99.1% of them had at least one underlying condition. This is published science data, available to everybody. 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.

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. — Echarmion

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 "fear mongering" media.

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

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

If one group of people stay in the shade, then that group of people will have their sunburns under control. But when they eventually go out and play on the beach of life, guess what? ...sunburns will come back!

Unless we can get everybody on this planet in a spacesuit at the same time, for 2 solid weeks, the virus will continue. It is impossible to social distance our way out of this mess. Herd immunity, and specifically "strategic herd immunity" is the ONLY solution we have. The longer we wait to implement it, the sooner we reach the point of no return, when the virus wins the battle of natural selection.

Note: "strategic herd immunity" means allowing the healthy population (along with the recently immunized) to rip off their masks and start mass socializing asap. Allowing the virus to continue to fester and mutate is not a winnable solution. We can never develop vaccines fast enough to keep up with the latest mutations.

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

Hi Echarmion, I would agree by going even further by saying it is more futile than that. In a theoretical sense, if we could put everyone (and every animal) simultaneously on this planet in a space suit (with no access to the outside) for two solid weeks, then social distancing could (in a theoretical sense) end this virus. But of course, without food or water, they would all be dead anyways. And if one person cheated and was infected, then this whole mess would balloon up all over again. Remember, all this started with one person on this planet; with just singular infection (in Wuhan China).

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

"Objective points"? ...which ones?