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

Book273

I have studied viral growth rates and patterns. Covid is just another virus in a petrie dish. A big petrie dish to be sure, but still, same growth curve applies. Wear a mask, social distance, whatever, same curve, slightly slower progress. That's why we aren't seeing apocalyptic numbers in places that have minimal restrictions and greatly reduced numbers in all the places that have many restrictions. There are variances, but only variances, not monster differences of growth that one would expect to see if the restrictions were particularly functional. However, the appearance of doing something is reassuring to people I am told. I am not one of those, so to me, a waste of effort.

TheMadFool

slightly slower progress — Book273

That's precisely the point! You've got it!

Book273

↪TheMadFool

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

TheMadFool

Sorry but it's a ridiculous premise. "we will do massive collateral damage, requiring generations to rebuild. Lives will be lost, economies will collapse, and possibly wars may start. But we can SLOW IT DOWN, a little." Seriously, terrible plan. — Book273

I'm sorry but if we can "SLOW IT DOWN" it means that there will be less infections, less "collateral damage" :chin:

Roger Gregoire

↪InPitzotl

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.

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

↪Book273

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.

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

↪Echarmion

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

SophistiCat

Name calling isn't helpful. — Book273

Yeah no, it's totally appropriate.

Here is cumulative COVID death rate in Sweden and its neighbors:

Sweden:  1:942
Finland: 1:8734
Norway:  1:9835
Denmark: 1:3050

Same for USA and Canada:

USA:    1:804
Canada: 1:2031

Of course, Book273 has already made it known that he's totally fine with there being more death and suffering, so this appeal to statistics is not only dishonest but hypocritical as well.

InPitzotl

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

Vulnerable people die when infected, by our model. They get infected when exposed to viruses in the environment. Infected people produce viruses. More viruses means more chances of getting vulnerable people infected.

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

No, vulnerable people are protected via herd immunity by not having any viruses around them.

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

No. A viral infection is when a virus infects you; that means it infects your cells, and that means it's reproducing. One virus makes many for each cell it infects. This being a respiratory virus, the first cells it infects are those on the air border. With every breath, a healthy person breathes out viruses. This is how viruses work. This is what infections are. What do you think infected even means in the context of viral infection?

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

See above. Viruses die in 7 days per our model. The only way they can continue to exist after 7 days is to infect someone else, thereby producing more viruses.

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

In our model, they do. We can quibble; if we do, I would point out that healthy people don't necessarily survive. But none of this matters regarding your wrongness, because we can define this out, given you're only talking about vague undefined concepts; healthy people by definition are those that survive covid, and vulnerable people by definition are those that die. Now the only weakness are exceptions like people getting sick, recovering, but not developing immunities, and so on, which we can ignore for this discussion, because even if we do you're still wrong based on how things actually work.

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

The vulnerable people who die as a consequence of viruses put into the environment due to your naively infecting healthy people. Per our model, only vulnerable people die anyway, and healthy people would survive anyway. You still get herd immunity, but that can't very well save a life you slaughtered on the way to it now, can it?

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

Nonsense. It results in less people infected at once which allows hospitals to not be overflowed. It buys time, which can be used to vaccinate people. And if practiced correctly there's a chance the virus could just die out on its own, not that human behavior would in practice support that.

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

We only practice social distancing with people who have a chance of being infected. In our model, everyone vaccinated is immune. Worry about this model first, until you understand the basics, then we can talk about something more realistic.

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

That effect is fictional. Viruses have to find their way from ground 0, the infected person, to another person they can infect, within 7 days (per our model). Viruses cannot infect immune people. That's the real driver of herd immunity. It's not that your immune people are cleaning the environment; immune systems don't work that way. They only fight infections within the host. It's just that they're not getting infected; a person who isn't infected just doesn't help the virus survive past those 7 days.

The virus, to survive more than a week, has to continually reset the clock, and that means all new viruses must infect people within 7 days. The more infections you have, the more viruses you have that have their clocks reset.

Have you even read the wikipedia page on herd immunity?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity

Isaac

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

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(20)30172-5/fulltext?fbclid=IwAR0ntYXSFYTQ5nEBFWn4Xv7CKW1r_9LTYTOr8z8gjQIu83V0UdkXZYLDvyQ

Do some fucking research before spouting off whatever you happen to reckon in public. Have some dignity man.

baker

Thirdly; By not allowing natural selection to occur, through falsely propping up those who would otherwise fall, we weaken the species, thereby allowing an increase in future deaths to yet another virus. — Book273

What makes you think that the hardships and deaths that are and will be due to the lockdowns and economic donwnturn _aren't_ "natural selection"?

Who is the official arbiter on what gets to be called "natural selection" and what doesn't?

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. — Roger Gregoire

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

But you don't really understand statistics, nor do you apparently care, seeing as you ignore any data that doesn't fit your theory.

Book273

↪TheMadFool

Umm...No, the infections are not the "Collateral damage", they are direct damage from the virus. The Collateral damage is the damage caused by the lockdowns et al. The longer the event drags out, the larger the collateral damage. Hence, lockdowns bad.

Book273

↪baker

I usually consider "natural selection" to be based on an agent which occurs within the natural environment, personal choice included in that environment. So electing to step off a cliff, or being exposed to a virus, or eaten by a lion, would be a natural selection process. However, in my consideration, being locked in a concentration camp and starving to death as there is no food provided, and one is unable to escape, would not be considered a "natural" process. However, if you would like to open the descriptor of "natural" to include any event which leads to any death, then yes, those who die from collateral damage would be considered, as per your interpretation, as "natural selection", however, once that has been allowed, everything would fall under said category and it would become effectively useless as a descriptor.

We could also lock everyone in their basements, mandate them to quiver in fear and learn to be terrified of the sun. Then make them bathe in anti-microbial soap every three hours, to reduce exposure to bacteria and viruses. That will definitely help their immune system and will have no detrimental effect on the species at all.

Roger Gregoire

↪InPitzotl

...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.

Roger Gregoire

↪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. — 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.

InPitzotl

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

You seem to be presuming that this is a matter of "playing the right side". It's not; it's about reality. This isn't about you versus the media or whatever other boogey man you dream up; this is about you versus how things actually work. If the media disagrees, the media's wrong. If you disagree, you're wrong. In the end, actual reality will unfold as a result of things we do, and that's the key to actually pulling off whatever strategy we implement.

That's why I'm not quoting media... that, and I don't get this from media anyway. That's why I'm instead explaining to you how things actually work.

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

Neither. Your question in 1 is a leading question, and the underlying premise of the question is wrong. Your ideas of herd immunity are fictional. Herd immunity isn't driven by healthy people cleaning up the virus; the only role healthy people play is not getting infected.

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

This is misguided. You said it yourself:

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

The issue is that promoting immunity by infection can only possibly increase the viruses in the environment. If our stated goal is to maximize the number of vulnerable people that survive, then the only thing we're after is maximizing the number of vulnerable people that survive. If herd immunity through vaccination kills less people than herd immunity through infection, we should prefer that strategy, because that's our goal. Right?

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

More dysphemisms. It's not fear, Roger, it's strategy. We care about humans, but this would work the same way in a simulation of weebles, where we just have a score.

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

This is like the old joke: "Q: How many legs does a dog have, if you call the tail a leg? A: Four. Calling the tail a leg doesn't make it a tail." Here, you have insisted on calling social distancing "hiding" and "inaction". But it's clearly not the same thing. So your insistence should be ignored. At best, you're rationalizing equivocation, but you can't very well expect me to conform to a demand by you of irrationality just by using your preferred label. Sir, you're on a philosophy forum. That garbage strategy isn't going to fly.

Inaction has a par of exposure to viruses. Social distancing compared to that par lowers that exposure, and therefore, lowers the number of infected people, and therefore, lowers the number of viruses in the environment. Equivocation doesn't change this fact. If you're serious about the brainwashing of the media and other conspiracy theories, then the way to avoid false conclusions is to avoid fallacies, and the way to that is to focus on what you can establish is true. If you're just going to spin dysphemisms in order to avoid facing facts, then you should rightfully be ignored or called out.

And furthermore, — Roger Gregoire

...as I said before, let's get the facts right on this model first.

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

Quite literally, a fan and an open window would help a vulnerable person far more than violating the fire code in his residence with immune people. Herd immunity doesn't work the way you describe... your concept of it is fictional.

We can focus on that if you like. This is philosophy after all, so why not discuss epistemics? You believe your fictional account of herd immunity for some reason. That has value if and only if it has a proper justification. So what justification do you have for your theory of herd immunity?

baker

However, if you would like to open the descriptor of "natural" to include any event which leads to any death, then yes, those who die from collateral damage would be considered, as per your interpretation, as "natural selection", however, once that has been allowed, everything would fall under said category and it would become effectively useless as a descriptor. — Book273

Hardly any word/concept has been so debated as "natural".

Why should social forces that are at work in human society be somehow not natural?
If, say, women pick the prospective fathers of their children by how much money they earn, then how is this not natural selection? It's just the human variant of when a female peacock hen chooses a male with splendid plummage.

Roger Gregoire

↪InPitzotl

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.

InPitzotl

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

This is an argument from authority fallacy. You don't know what you're talking about; Dr. Fauci looks like a pretty bright fellow to me, so I highly doubt he'd make such a silly mistake as you did. Here's a quote from the wiki article:

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

Here's the difference between what you said, and what I said:

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

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

What I said matches (a), and matches (b). What you said does not match (a) and does not match (b).

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

Agree with what? The thing I said was misguided wasn't even a statement; it was a question. This question:

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

You're effectively saying: "virtually all reputable medical scientists agree that 'if herd immunity is our ONLY solution to saving vulnerable people, then what are we waiting for?'", which is incoherent.

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

Nope, they're correct. Recall that I said that getting everyone sick will lead to herd immunity; that's also correct. But it also is a worst case scenario for saving lives. Your misguided question confuses achieving herd immunity with saving lives. The problem is, as I've repeated, herd immunity will only protect people who are alive at the time it's attained; it does not protect the people you slaughtered on the way to attain it.

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

Sure, you can call it anything you like, but names don't change facts. But it would appear the only reason you call it "hiding" is to try to paint it sour as a poor substitute for giving a rational argument against it. And intentionally equating social distancing to inaction is just being blatantly anti-logic.

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.

Roger Gregoire

↪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.

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? — Roger Gregoire

Not really. Rationality doesn't mean that Roger doesn't understand. You're committing logical fallacies.

This is irrational (logically flawed), — Roger Gregoire

A logical flaw is something that does not logically follow, not something Roger disagrees with, or something Roger doesn't understand.

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.

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

That the reasoning has consequences doesn't mean it has a logical flaw. A logical flaw is when something does not logically follow.

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

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

So let me understand your logic. Roger says that herd immunity is a function of healthy people getting immune and cleaning up the environment. I, and wikipedia, say that herd immunity is a function of building greater "distance" between infected people and people who can get infected by converting the population into mostly immune people. So here, Roger is going to prove his theory of herd immunity by... changing my description of herd immunity, then attacking it on the basis that his straw version would be easy. Therefore, Roger's version is correct. Is this how your logic works?

If so, this is known as a straw man argument, and the use of it to conclude your version is correct is a red herring. Those are logical fallacies.

Now, let's go over your examples. In your first example, your entire population is in a room, and you're "protecting" your healthy people with space suits. I'll grant your space suits are protective, but there are some major problems here. First off, any sick vulnerable person in your room is producing viruses. Second, they will be sick for some time, even if they eventually succumb; say, 10 days. Third, the virus is viable for 7 days after that. So from the time they get sick, they spread the virus around in the room, and those viruses are viable for 7 days. That's 10 days of wandering, plus 7 days of being viable and being tossed about by daily activities. That infection range easily covers the room. So your healthy people have to eat and drink, without taking off their space suits, for at least those 17 days; but it gets worse. Each time an uninfected vulnerable person gets sick, the clock gets reset. So it's actually longer than 17 days. Eventually, though, everyone who will get sick will, and everyone who dies will, and the viruses will wind up becoming unviable. At that time, you have accomplished eradication, but that's still not herd immunity, because you didn't build distance between infected people and people who could get infected by means of making people immune; you did it with space suits (and starving, thirsty healthy people).

In your second example, healthy people in Arizona don't disappear, and Oklahoma has bordering states. But vulnerable people have to eat, so they're still in occasional contact with each other, since they've only got each other as food distributors. But so long as they protect themselves with, say, masks, quarantines, and so on, they can increase their safety. If they could manage this to such an extent that viruses from sick people don't infect the next guy within 7 days of their life span, they could even attain eradication. But again, that wouldn't be herd immunity. And those people in Arizona still exist, making Arizona denser.

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

Begging the question. I've explained several times why that's unrealistic. But now you're trying to prove it with a straw man.

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

It's not that they aren't getting infected; it's that the distance between infected people and the next person that can be infected exceeds the infection range. Read the wikipedia article. Look at the picture at the very least.

Roger Gregoire

↪InPitzotl

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

InPitzotl

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

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

Underlined is an appeal to motive fallacy.

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?

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?

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

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).

I made a video showing runs of this program under multiple scenarios, here:
https://streamable.com/veas6l

Note that with 80% and 95% immunity on this model (80x25 board, population 500, 5 initial infections, 20 vulnerable people), eradication is attained without killing all of the vulnerable people. Nothing in the code codes for healthy people cleaning up viruses; it simply codes for spreading to nearby neighbors who were never infected.

This is mainstream stuff. Compare to that wikipedia article on herd immunity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity
...and this:
https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/herd-immunity-0

Roger Gregoire

↪InPitzotl

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

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).

InPitzotl

No problem with my logic. — Roger Gregoire

Well, yeah, C2 does not follow. My program in effect proves that.

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

Sickness might I remind you using your definition, which is a distinction I'm not making. But here we are, talking about this irrelevancy. This is a distraction.

C2 follows from C1 — Roger Gregoire

Nope.

C1 says "sickness is irrelevant". — Roger Gregoire

No, C1 is the negation of this claim, call it X: "everyone must get sick to gain herd immunity", which denies that herd immunity can be accomplished through any means except for getting everyone sick. C2 is the negation of this claim, call it Y: "getting everyone sick will lead to herd immunity", which allows for other methods of attaining herd immunity. Y=true, X=false is logically consistent under the condition that getting everyone sick attains herd immunity but there's another way to attain it. So C2 cannot follow from C1.

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

My coding demonstrates that the thing I described works. That refutes this claim:

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

...because this is, in fact, possible; given the program works, that is proof by demonstration. And, it proves by demonstration that this is false:

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

...since this model does indeed demonstrate a protective effect without that condition you say is the only way to do so.

Roger Gregoire

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.

InPitzotl

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

The code isn't coding for a protective effect. It's coding for the premises. Line 10 has the states discussed earlier. Line 17 implements a person with those states at some location, with a vulnerable flag. Line 145 implements population of the world; it scatters people randomly using a Mersenne twister from the language's standard library. At line 209 it connects people to neighbors that fall within the infection range. Line 236 implements the display of each stage. Each step is implemented by the method at line 268. That method kills off any vulnerable infected people, makes immune any healthy infected person, and infects everyone in the infection range.

Running the program proves that the conclusion bears out. In the video, the scenario announcement corresponds to the inputs.

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

298 is where neighbors are infected. Note that they are only infected if they are in Uninfected state. I.e., the healthy immune people (vulnerable=false, state=Immune) are literally "standing around not getting infected". The running program demonstrates the protective effect.

I'll wait. — Roger Gregoire

You're trying to wring blood from a stone.

Roger Gregoire

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

InPitzotl

So then, what is P2? — Roger Gregoire

Are you talking about this P2?:

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

That's your premise, not part of my model. Sick per your definition is irrelevant.

ETA: So you can follow:

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

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

In reference to your edits, don't go by what you said my premises are, go by what I said. Here I've correlated the code directly to the first post where I discussed the model. 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.

Isaac

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 you 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.

Roger Gregoire

↪InPitzotl

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"?

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

↪Isaac

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!

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

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions