Roger thinks that herd immunity works by the people with antibodies vacuuming up, and killing all the viruses so that they can't infect others. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't necessarily disagree. The highest density of the virus (in the environment) is that which is closest to a shedder of the virus, hence the reasoning to stay 6 feet apart. But what one breathes in from the environment, or the surfaces in the environment that one touches (and then touches nose/mouth) is where one ultimately comes in contact with the virus. In other words, it is the contaminated environment that one is in, that determines if one receives the virus. — Roger Gregoire

But masking healthy people who would normally remove more of the virus than they contribute. — Roger Gregoire

No one is removing the virus. That's not how it works. — Kenosha Kid

But no one acts as a viral vacuum. — Kenosha Kid

Herd immunity is when a large enough percentage of the population has got antibodies to the disease that it cannot spread! — counterpunch

Imagine 10 people inside a room with 10 mosquitos flying about. Further imagine that 0 (none) of these people are healthy (a mosquito bite does not bother them) and all 10 people are vulnerable, whereas a mosquito bite would result in a severe reaction and certain death. So the odds of a vulnerable person dying from a mosquito bite in this scenario is 100% (10 mosquitos / 10 total people) which equals 10 dead people.

Now imagine we add 10 healthy people to this room (environment) of 10 vulnerable people. So now the odds of a vulnerable person dying from a mosquito bite in this scenario is 50% (10 mosquitos / 20 total people) which equals 5 dead people.

Now imagine we told these 10 healthy people in the room to strip down naked to expose 10 times more body surface area for the mosquitoes to bite, and then put the excess clothing around the vulnerable people to give them an extra layer of protection. So now the odds of a vulnerable person dying from a mosquito bite in this scenario is 5% (10 mosquitos/(20 total people x 10 times more exposure to healthy people and more protection to vulnerable people)) which equals 0.5 dead people. — Roger Gregoire

Yes, the quickest way to attain herd immunity is to allow the virus to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time. — Valentinus

The protective effects of herd immunity just doesn't happen "magically" because we added more healthy immune people into the mix. There is a reason that we get this "protective effect". — Roger Gregoire

If what you say were true, then the protective effects of herd immunity would be impossible. — Roger Gregoire

Slowing down infections helped many people not die from other infections. It is a simple approach. You find a way to not die and you take it. — Valentinus

The second problem with your approach is that communities that protect themselves by masking and demanding other people to do the same are safer than the ones who do not. — Valentinus

The protective effects of herd immunity just doesn't happen "magically" because we added more healthy immune people into the mix. There is a reason that we get this "protective effect". — Roger Gregoire

People with immunity break vectors, that is all. — Kenosha Kid

If what you say were true, then the protective effects of herd immunity would be impossible. — Roger Gregoire

No, they're very possible, just not by batshit crazy means. The probability of person C indirectly catching the virus from person A via person B drops if person B is immune. Since viruses need to spread to survive, breaking the vectors it can spread along can kill it dead even if a quarter of the people aren't immune. It's nothing to do with subtracting the virus, it's just to do with creating barriers to its propagation. — Kenosha Kid

I don't know where you're learning this crap from but please stop going there, it's properly insane. — Kenosha Kid

Please describe, or give an illustration (like my mosquito illustration) on how "breaking vectors" magically creates a "protective effect". You will see that it actually makes things worse. If you remove healthy people far away from vulnerable people, vulnerable people die faster, are less protected. — Roger Gregoire

Imagine 10 people inside a room with 10 mosquitos flying about. Further imagine that 0 (none) of these people are healthy (a mosquito bite does not bother them) and all 10 people are vulnerable, whereas a mosquito bite would result in a severe reaction and certain death. So the odds of a vulnerable person dying from a mosquito bite in this scenario is 100% (10 mosquitos / 10 total people) which equals 10 dead people. — Roger Gregoire

#include <random>
#include <iostream>

struct Person {
    unsigned int times_bit;
    Person() : times_bit(0) {}
};


int main() {
    std::mt19937 rng;
    std::uniform_int_distribution<unsigned> bite(0, 9);
    unsigned times_all_bit = 0;
    unsigned each_bit[10] = {0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0};
    unsigned cumulative_mortality = 0;
    for (unsigned n=0; n<10000; ++n)
    {
        // Nobody bit yet this run
        Person people[10];
        // 10 mosquitos bite
        for (unsigned mosquito=0; mosquito<10; ++mosquito)
        {
            ++people[bite(rng)].times_bit;
        }
        // Count the dead this round
        unsigned num_dead=0;
        for (unsigned p=0; p<10; ++p)
        {
            if (people[p].times_bit>0) {
                ++num_dead;
            }
        }
        // Add to times_all_bit if everyone was bit
        if (num_dead==10) ++times_all_bit;
        // Add number dead to cumulative mortality
        cumulative_mortality += num_dead;
        // Accumulate number of times each person was bit
        for (unsigned e=0; e<10; ++e)
           if (people[e].times_bit>0) ++each_bit[e];
    }
    std::cout << "Out of 10000 runs, everyone was bit in " << times_all_bit << ".\n";
    std::cout << "Average deaths per round is " << (cumulative_mortality/10000.0) << ".\n";
    std::cout << "Breakdown of each bit:\n";
    for (unsigned p=0; p<10; ++p)
    {
        std::cout << " person " << (p+1) << " bit in " << each_bit[p] << " runs\n";
    }
}

Out of 10000 runs, everyone was bit in 3.
Average deaths per round is 6.5107.
Breakdown of each bit:
 person 1 bit in 6593 runs
 person 2 bit in 6415 runs
 person 3 bit in 6548 runs
 person 4 bit in 6491 runs
 person 5 bit in 6446 runs
 person 6 bit in 6533 runs
 person 7 bit in 6594 runs
 person 8 bit in 6491 runs
 person 9 bit in 6494 runs
 person 10 bit in 6502 runs

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

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

Your program only shows the protective effects of social distancing, not herd immunity. — Roger Gregoire

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

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

Let's review, again:

Community immunity: A situation in which a sufficient proportion of a population is immune to an infectious disease (through vaccination and/or prior illness) to make its spread from person to person unlikely. — InPitzotl

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

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

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

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

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

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

Community immunity: A situation in which a sufficient proportion of a population is immune to an infectious disease (through vaccination and/or prior illness) to make its spread from person to person unlikely. — InPitzotl

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

This is Non-Truth #1. ... People's respiratory systems are NOT directly connected to one anther's. — Roger Gregoire

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

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

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

This is not what creates the "protective effect" of herd immunity. — Roger Gregoire

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

But herd immunity does not work that way. — Roger Gregoire

...spread from person to person… — CDC

You are arguing against the CDC — InPitzotl

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

You could. — InPitzotl

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

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

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

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

People's respiratory systems are NOT directly connected to one another. — Roger Gregoire

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

Yes, if they claim that the virus transmits "person-to-person", then logically, they are wrong. — Roger Gregoire

Making an "appeal-to-authority" (a logical fallacy) is an irrational means of arguing; has no logical basis. — Roger Gregoire

And it's not just me saying this, but virtually all medical experts, scientists, and health agencies (e.g. CDC, etc) also say this. — Roger Gregoire

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

You could. — InPitzotl

We obviously disagree over the CDC's usage of "person-to-person" in their definition of herd immunity. — Roger Gregoire

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

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

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

Its just a simple question. A simple sentence is all thats needed, — Roger Gregoire

I don't need a micro detailed account. — Roger Gregoire

Either you know how a community of 100% vulnerable can be protected (in the absence of immune people) or you don't. — Roger Gregoire

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

InPitzotl, you are very disingenuous. — Roger Gregoire

You seem to be more interested in finding ways to insult than in giving a straight answer. — Roger Gregoire

Let's assume the herd immunity threshold value is 60%. — Roger Gregoire

And you say, all we need to do is not let these immune people shed virus back into the environment, and we get the protective effect to the other 40 vulnerable people. — Roger Gregoire

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

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. A carrier is essentially another person in state (B). Then if the person is healthy, they go to state (C1), immune. If they are vulnerable, they go to state (C2), dead. So in these terms we want to minimize the number of people in state (C2), death by covid. — InPitzotl

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

In other words, if a virus found its way into this community of now 100% vulnerable people, what would protect them? — Roger Gregoire

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

...and your answer is "distance"? — Roger Gregoire

...do we need to distance these statues to a remote island? — Roger Gregoire

...will that then magically protect the 40 vulnerable people? — Roger Gregoire

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

So again, our discussion is done, as I prefer not to debate with dishonest, disingenuous people. — Roger Gregoire

We can do this state by state (or maybe city by city, or community by community). For example, let's take all the immune people in Oklahoma and ship them Arizona, that way we now have 100% certainty that these immune Oklahoman's, that now are in Arizona, will not shed any virus whatsoever back into Oklahoma. — Roger Gregoire

I hate wearing a mask! Mostly because I think it's useless. — Book273