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

Roger Gregoire

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

***********
I know, I know… your first thought after reading this title is “Wow Roger, now you’ve really lost your mind!”. But humor me a bit and take a look at this analogy first, (…and then feel free to call me nuts, …if you still think so).

Firstly, my point of this analogy is to illustrate, what I see, as the catastrophic ending that we are all headed towards if we don’t change our course of action very soon. Although well intentioned, our current social distancing policies are having an opposite effect; the virus is only getting worse, not better. We are fast approaching a point of no return.

We fail to recognize that the healthy population (those with strong immune systems) on this planet are like the white blood cells of an individual’s body. Intentionally holding them back from an infection means that the infection will grow and mutate unabated. This is much like keeping a fire extinguisher hidden away from a fire. By the time we realize our error it will be too late. The rate of the virus replication will soon exceed mankind’s ability to extinguish it.

Of course, I hope I am wrong. And maybe one of you can show the flaw in my reasoning. If you want, you can just stop reading here and call me nuts, or if you are brave or curious enough to dare see what I see, then continue on. In this analogy, I’m using the following representations:

1. Cars = people
2. Car Tires = people’s immune system
3. Tires with lots of deep tread = good strong immune systems
4. Tires that are bald/balding = weak immune systems
5. Cars with punctured tires = dead people
6. A wide stretch of highway (aka the Highway of Life) = society; public life.
7. Thumb tacks scattered across the highway = covid-19 virus out in society
8. Slowing down traffic; slowing down tack infection = social distancing
9. Retreading (adding tread to) tires = vaccination to help increase immunity

Imagine that thumb tacks are randomly scattered all over the highway. The cars with good tires (“healthy cars”) simply run over and crush (kill) these tacks, while some of the cars with balding tires (“vulnerable cars”) are getting their tires punctured causing them to crash.

To help mitigate the deaths of these vulnerable cars, the government’s top science and medical experts have demanded that we slow down ALL traffic. They believe that slowing the spread of tack infections will result in saving more vulnerable cars.

[Mistake #1 - treating our population as ONE group; failing to realize that there are TWO segments to our population. We should encourage the ‘vulnerable’ segment to STOP socialization (i.e., stricter social distancing; quarantine), while encouraging the ‘healthy’ segment to SPEED UP socialization. The one-size-fits-all government policy of “SLOWING the spread for ALL” is the worst possible option. It not only results in more deaths to our vulnerable population, but it also allows the virus to continue to grow unabated (by keeping the healthy away from the virus).]

Government experts are quick to reject those that say we should allow the healthy cars to speed up and run free (i.e., implement “strategic herd immunity”) as being misinformed quacks, and warn us that if we listen to them then more cars would end up with punctured tires, because they say:

1) there is a slight chance that some of these healthy cars might get their tires punctured; they may actually have a weakness somewhere in their tire tread where a random tack might penetrate, and
2) some of these healthy cars might not kill all the tacks they encounter, some of the surviving tacks may escape, or be spit out, in front of the oncoming vulnerable cars that are still driving on the highway.

[Mistake #2 - this is akin to keeping a fire extinguisher away from a fire for 1) fear of burning the fire extinguisher itself, and 2) fear that the fire extinguisher may spread some of the fire while it is extinguishing the fire. The preference to let the fire run unabated only allows the fire to continue to grow in size.]

Our government experts nonetheless reject the opposing arguments and continue to demand that ALL traffic (including the healthy cars) slow down until a means (a vaccine) is developed which can add new tread to our balding tires. They tell us that this ability to add new tread to existing balding tires will help save more of our vulnerable cars and will ultimately end or minimize future tacks on the highway.

In the meantime, the policy of slowing down all cars does not seem to be working, the number of punctured tires is increasing at a faster and faster rate. Something must be wrong, why are things getting worse? Government experts respond by saying that we need even MORE slowdown of traffic.

[Mistake #3 - contrary to popular belief, “slowing down the spread” does NOT necessarily mean “saving more lives”. In this case, it does just the opposite. Slowing down, or keeping the fire extinguishers hidden away from a fire does not make the fire grow smaller, it makes it grow larger, thereby creating more deaths of our vulnerable population.]

The government experts rightly tell us that when a tack imbeds into the soft section of a balding tire, and assuming it has not already penetrated and punctured the tire, it starts to replicate, producing more tacks within the soft section of tire (its host). Soon, these cars with balding tires are so loaded with new tacks, that they start shedding tacks all over the highway, thereby increasing the total number of tacks out on the highway, making it even more dangerous for vulnerable cars to travel on.

Furthermore, government experts rightly tell us that each replication of a tack is a slight variation of the previous tack. Because of the laws of natural selection (aka survival of the fittest) the points of the surviving replicated tacks are now a little bit longer and stronger than the previous version. These mutated tacks now pose a threat to those cars with marginal treads that were once considered safe enough with the original version tacks.

So now it is January 2021, and we have developed the means to add enough tread to our balding tires to withstand the original version of the virus. A massive nationwide re-treading program is implemented making it safer for more cars to get back on the highway of life.

But wait. Our government experts are now suggesting that we keep the slowdown of ALL traffic, even though we have re-treaded tires on our vulnerable cars. The calls to allow the freedom and speeding up of our healthy (and recently re-treaded) cars are being rejected by our experts as “unsafe”. They say that new tack variants/mutations have arrived onto our highways and we may possibly have to wait until we develop another newer tread (vaccine) that can withstand this longer stronger tack. They demand that we keep ALL cars slowed down until we know if our recent re-treading will protect against these newer tacks.

[FATAL mistake #4 - is repeating the mistakes 1, 2, and 3. If we don’t act immediately and change course, then the party is over. If we allow the virus to grow to a point where we can no longer extinguish it, then it will extinguish us.]

*************
In conclusion, we can’t win this fight by playing defense; by continually hiding, nor can we develop vaccines at a fast enough pace to ever keep up with the latest mutations.

The reason the flu virus (and its many mutations) has not already doomed us is because we did not mess with mother nature; we did not socially distance our healthy population; we did not hold back our white blood cells (the protectors) away from the infection; we did not keep the fire extinguisher away from the fire that needed extinguishing.

If we don’t immediately unmask and start the full speed socialization of our healthy populations on this planet (including those recently vaccinated) then the party is over. The virus will have won the battle of natural selection (“survival of the fittest”).

LuckyR

A couple of things. First the current mutations are covered quite nicely by the vaccines. Secondly, the difference in hospitalization rate between those over 80 and those between 40 and 79 is about 3 to 1. So younger folks are not as "immune" as your analogies (?) imply. At the same time, the total number of those 40 to 79 is much higher (140 million vs 10 million).

Basically we are going to get to herd immunity. You get there through a combo of exposure to illness and vaccination. The higher percentage of illness, the higher the deaths. In 11 months the US has 24 million known illness exposures and in one month 12 million vaccinated. Obviously we can vaccinate way, way faster than the virus spreads with halfa55sd attempts at containing it. The US has the 12th highest death rate, so most countries are going to get to herd immunity with fewer relative deaths than the US. Sad, really.

TheMadFool

Although well intentioned, our current social distancing policies are having an opposite effect; the virus is only getting worse, not better. We are fast approaching a point of no return. — Roger Gregoire

Social distancing is the reason why things aren't worse than they are. The reason why the situation is so bad is because people have been flouting social distancing regulations.

Roger Gregoire

Social distancing is the reason why things aren't worse than they are. The reason why the situation is so bad is because people have been flouting social distancing regulations. — TheMadFool

HiMadFool, I agree that we need more and better social distancing of our vulnerable population. BUT social distancing the healthy population is counter productive and if we keep it up, then we are all doomed. To better understand this point, read the analogy that I gave.

Things are actually getting worse because of too much social distancing of our healthy population. The fire is getting bigger because we are hiding and keeping the fire extinguisher away from the fire! ...and if we wait too long, the fire will be too big to put out.

Remember, herd immunity (via infection or vaccination) is the ONLY way to stop this virus.

TheMadFool

HiMadFool, I agree that we need more and better social distancing of our vulnerable population. BUT social distancing the healthy population is counter productive and if we keep it up, then we are all doomed. To better understand this point, read the analogy that I gave. — Roger Gregoire

:up: :ok: Sorry for sidetracking you. I just saw something that caught my eye.

Roger Gregoire

Hi LuckyR, I recognize your name from another forum. (I was "RJG"). What ever happened to onlinephilosophy? It seems they are no longer on the web.

A couple of things. First the current mutations are covered quite nicely by the vaccines. Secondly, the difference in hospitalization rate between those over 80 and those between 40 and 79 is about 3 to 1. So younger folks are not as "immune" as your analogies (?) imply. At the same time, the total number of those 40 to 79 is much higher (140 million vs 10 million). — LuckyR

I don't imply "age" at all. Although generally true, it is not necessarily about age (old people can have good immune systems, and young people can have bad immune system), it's more about the condition of one's "immune" system. In my analogy I refer to the condition of one's immune system as good tire tread (lots of deep tread) or bald/balding tires.

Basically we are going to get to herd immunity. You get there through a combo of exposure to illness and vaccination. — LuckyR

Agreed. This is the only way to stop the virus. Herd immunity (via infection or vaccination) will ultimately require that these people mix back into society to give the protective effect of herd immunity. But if we keep these people, or continue to keep and hide away our healthy (those that are immune via infection (with healthy immune systems) or via vaccination) socially isolated, then we have accomplished nothing. That is my point. The healthy (and those recently immunized) need to immediately get out in public (take off the mask, stop the social distancing) so the fire extinguisher can do its work.

baker

But if we keep these people, or continue to keep and hide away our healthy (those that are immune via infection (with healthy immune systems) or via vaccination) socially isolated, then we have accomplished nothing. — Roger Gregoire

IIn the case of covid, the point of social distancing is to slow down the infection rate, so that the medical system doesn't collapse.

Secondly, who exactly are "the healthy"? If you look at obesity and diabetes rates (two major risks for covid complications), the healthy are actually a relatively small group.

Roger Gregoire

In the case of covid, the point of social distancing is to slow down the infection rate, so that the medical system doesn't collapse. — baker

We have two different segments (vulnerable and healthy) of our population which should be treated differently to minimize the overall total deaths (to "save lives"). In other words, "slowing down the spread" to our vulnerable population DECREASE the load on our medical system, and "slowing down the spread" to our healthy population INCREASE the load on our medical system. Although it seems contrary, we need to "speed up the spread" to our healthy population (who in most cases will be asymptomatic) to DECREASE the load on our medical systems and minimize overall total deaths.

To better understand this, review the analogy in the OP.

Secondly, who exactly are "the healthy"? If you look at obesity and diabetes rates (two major risks for covid complications), the healthy are actually a relatively small group. — baker

Not so. We have a very large population of those under 30 years old. Most of these have very strong immune systems. Also there are many extremely healthy (with strong immune systems) of those older than 30.

baker

You seem to think that distinguishing between the vulnerable and the healthy is easy (enough), and that it is easy (enough) to effectively separate them.

It's not clear that this is the case.

Roger Gregoire

↪baker

If you are not sure, then it is best that you keep the mask on and keep social distancing. We wouldn't want to contribute to the problem

But I suspect most school age kids and young adults are healthy enough to take off their masks and immediately begin large scale socialization (activities).

For the more healthy people we get to take off their masks and start social distancing full time, the faster this virus will dissipate, and the more lives we will save.

SophistiCat

I know, I know… your first thought after reading this title is “Wow Roger, now you’ve really lost your mind!”. But humor me a bit and take a look at this analogy first — Roger Gregoire

You don't understand how to use analogies. An analogy can illustrate an unfamiliar scenario in more familiar terms to provide an intuitive feel for it. But first, you need to make sure that your analogy really does function the same way as the real scenario in all relevant respects. And second, an analogy is not a substitute for an argument, it's just a rhetorical aid for making the argument more accessible.

What you do is make up an analogy (multiple analogies: blood cells, car tires, fire extinguishers...) without clearly and convincingly showing how it parallels the real situation, and then draw conclusions from the analogy (and then constantly refer readers to the analogy, as if it constituted an argument).

This seems to be your argument in its entirety (paraphrasing to get rid of an unnecessary analogy):

We fail to recognize that intentionally holding the healthy population (those with strong immune systems) on this planet from an infection means that the infection will grow and mutate unabated.

This is ignorant on a very basic level. Population mutation rate is proportional to (virus) population size. That is to say, the more the virus reproduces, the more mutations will appear. Letting the virus run wild through most of the population is guaranteed to produce more mutations than restraining the virus spread as much as possible.

Add to this the fact that we cannot practically separate the "vulnerable" population from the "healthy" population for many months, while we wait for the "healthy" to acquire herd immunity. "Vulnerable" people live among us (and for most people we don't even know the extent of their vulnerability). They have families and caretakers; they will come in contact with other people. Only by restraining the overall infection rate can we protect them.

Government experts are quick to reject those that say we should allow the healthy cars to speed up and run free (i.e., implement “strategic herd immunity”) as being misinformed quacks — Roger Gregoire

Expertise is not acquired quickly. It takes years of training an experience. And yes, they are right to reject random inputs from misinformed quacks.

baker

But I suspect most school age kids and young adults are healthy enough to take off their masks and immediately begin large scale socialization (activities). — Roger Gregoire

And then infect the vulnerable.

Jack Cummins

↪Roger Gregoire

In South London, during a previous time in between lockdowns, I saw on many occasions groups of school pupils, and they looked about 16 years old at least, crowding onto busses and inside shops and not a mask in sight. At this time, which was before the time of the new strain of the virus, so many people were wondering why the infection rate was rising tremendously and I believe this was a large part of the problem.

But of course, it would be wrong to just blame the school children. Also, a lot of adults were not sticking to rules and I also believe that people having to live in overcrowded living conditions was and still is a stumbling block in enabling people to socially distance to bringing the infection rate down properly.

Streetlight

↪SophistiCat

:up:

unenlightened

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

Of course it will. reproduction demands a certain intimacy, and without reproduction, human life will of course come to an end. But the bad news is that we are not all total wankers, and enough of us will flout the rules to keep the population growing.

LuckyR

↪Roger Gregoire

No I don't have any information on the OPC, apparently it was hacked awhile back so maybe it's getting repaired?

Unfortunately other than age trends, it is difficult to categorize immune system strength before illness. I agree with you about the recovered and the vaccinated, scientifically, but psychologically it would lead to a two tiered system in a situation that is already tribalistic, so I agree that it is more practical to continue as we are doing until hospitalization numbers drop.

Roger Gregoire

↪SophistiCat

SophistiCat, it seems that you view healthy people (those with strong immune systems) more as "spreaders" of the virus than as "removers" of the virus (as is illustrated in the car analogy). ...yes, or no?

********

But I suspect most school age kids and young adults are healthy enough to take off their masks and immediately begin large scale socialization (activities). — Roger Gregoire

And then infect the vulnerable. — baker

This is the Mistake #2. (Mistake #1 is not recognizing the two different segments of the population; healthy and vulnerable). The fear of catching the virus from a healthy person is precisely what is allowing the virus to grow larger and kill more people. For the most part, healthy immune systems don't replicate and spread 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).

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).

If we stop healthy people's immune systems from attacking and killing the virus (via strategic herd immunity) that it encounters in society for fear that they may shed some of the virus back into society, then the virus will NEVER stop. It will only grow (perpetuate) and mutate which means that as time goes on there will be less and less healthy people (to fight the virus) and more and more vulnerable people (to die from the virus). It will continue until "Natural Selection" is complete. The virus wins. Humans lose.

If we stop a vacuum cleaner from cleaning the dirt off the rug for fear that the vacuum cleaner may expel some of the dirt back onto the rug, then the rug will NEVER get cleaned. - It will only get dirtier, as the dirty shoes traveling across the rug will shed/spread more and more dirt on the rug.

********

In South London, during a previous time in between lockdowns, I saw on many occasions groups of school pupils, and they looked about 16 years old at least, crowding onto busses and inside shops and not a mask in sight. At this time, which was before the time of the new strain of the virus, so many people were wondering why the infection rate was rising tremendously and I believe this was a large part of the problem.

But of course, it would be wrong to just blame the school children. Also, a lot of adults were not sticking to rules and I also believe that people having to live in overcrowded living conditions was and still is a stumbling block in enabling people to socially distance to bringing the infection rate down properly. — Jack Cummins

Good comments, but to add/clarify we should be more concerned about 'total deaths' rather than 'infection rate'. Increasing infection rate of our vulnerable population is BAD (it increases overall deaths), and the increasing infection rate of our healthy population is GOOD (it decreases overall deaths).

********

...and enough of us will flout the rules to keep the population growing. — unenlightened

Hopefully so! Hopefully many of our healthy population will flout the irrational and deadly rules of social distancing (of our healthy population) to save the whole human population.

********

Unfortunately other than age trends, it is difficult to categorize immune system strength before illness. I agree with you about the recovered and the vaccinated, scientifically, but psychologically it would lead to a two tiered system in a situation that is already tribalistic, so I agree that it is more practical to continue as we are doing until hospitalization numbers drop. — LuckyR

The hospital numbers are a bit deceiving as they really reflect the adherence/non-adherence of social distancing by our 'vulnerable' population, not our 'healthy' population. Social distancing of our healthy population has little to no effect on hospital burden.

I also wholly agree that our vulnerable population is not doing enough to protect themselves. For example, too many of them are in the grocery stores wearing these porous paper or cloth masks, and touching stuff that everyone else has touched. If they are going to risk their lives going out in public, then they need hazmat suits, or just stay home in quarantine.

But if we don't turn our healthy people loose (including those recently vaccinated) on attacking and killing this virus (via "strategic" herd immunity), then the party is over. No one will survive this virus. We are already close to the point-of-no-return (where the infection/replication rate is greater than our rate to attack and kill this virus).

LuckyR

↪Roger Gregoire

Several things: first, we don't need to "kill" viruses, we just need to deprive them of hosts. Thus viruses don't need to be "attack"ed. That's the value of social distancing. Your first statement is self-contradictory, since the "vulnerable" population IS the "healthy" population. The invulnerable population is a combo of the vaccinated and those who have recovered.

Outlander

Yes. The only reasonable solution is to create more doomsday devices capable of destroying not just entire regions but entire continents. Ergo, if every person is allowed to have one in their home, we end all war/conflict/hostility/negativity completely. It couldn't be more obvious.

Roger Gregoire

Several things: first, we don't need to "kill" viruses, we just need to deprive them of hosts.Thus viruses don't need to be "attack"ed. That's the value of social distancing. — LuckyR

Do you think we can "social distance" our way out of this mess? ...or do we need herd immunity (of the healthy and recently vaccinated)?

Your first statement is self-contradictory, since the "vulnerable" population IS the "healthy" population. — LuckyR

I don't follow. Vulnerable refers to those with 'weak/bad' immune systems. And healthy refers to those with 'strong/good' immune systems. They are NOT the same.

LuckyR

↪Roger Gregoire

Vulnerable means: can get the disease. Invulnerable is synonymous with immune, the vaccinated plus the recovered. Since those among the vulnerable who will require a hospital bed and those won't is unpredictable, your immune system description while fun to muse about, has no practical application.

Social distancing is a crutch while we wait for the vaccine to solve the problem, so neither of us thinks it is the solution.

SophistiCat

SophistiCat, it seems that you view healthy people (those with strong immune systems) more as "spreaders" of the virus than as "removers" of the virus — Roger Gregoire

People aren't "removers" of the virus. Once it is out of its host, a virus dies on its own if it doesn't find a new host, which is nearly always. You don't need people going around "hoovering" virus particles; just leave them alone for a few hours or days and they'll become inactive. If a virus succeeds in infecting a new host, even someone who for whatever reason doesn't show symptoms (it's more complicated than just having a healthy immune system), that by definition means that the virus is reproducing - increasing the probability of its further transmission (asymptomatic carriers are infectious) and of new mutations arising. The more hosts it infects, the more immune systems it encounters, the higher the probability that it mutates to become more infectious and resistant. This is what we are already seeing. It is probably no accident that a recent more infectious strain appeared in a country that had one of the highest infection rates to begin with.

You need to stop thinking in terms of analogies and think about the real situation, which isn't so complicated that one cannot understand it otherwise. We are all, hopefully, familiar with the basics of the germ theory of disease. And educate yourself a little before pontificating on this topic.

Roger Gregoire

Vulnerable means: can get the disease. Invulnerable is synonymous with immune, the vaccinated plus the recovered. — LuckyR

Not to necessarily disagree, but this is a different definition than the one used in my analogy/OP.

***********

Social distancing is a crutch while we wait for the vaccine to solve the problem, so neither of us thinks it is the solution. — LuckyR

I agree that social distancing is very rational for our vulnerable population (those with weak or compromised immune systems), ...but it is highly irrational for our healthy population (...it is self-defeating; it kills more vulnerable people than it saves).

***********

SophistiCat, it seems that you view healthy people (those with strong immune systems) more as "spreaders" of the virus than as "removers" of the virus. — Roger Gregoire

People aren't "removers" of the virus. — SophistiCat

Don't healthy immune systems attack and kill invading viruses?

***********

Once it is out of its host, a virus dies on its own if it doesn't find a new host, which is nearly always. — SophistiCat

Agreed, but to clarify, when it is shedded from its host (via a sneeze, etc), it doesn't die immediately, it can stay alive for up to 7 days depending on the surface it lands on.

***********

If a virus succeeds in infecting a new host, even someone who for whatever reason doesn't show symptoms (it's more complicated than just having a healthy immune system), that by definition means that the virus is reproducing - increasing the probability of its further transmission (asymptomatic carriers are infectious) and of new mutations arising. — SophistiCat

Yes, 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, healthy immune systems don't replicate and spread 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).

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).

***********

You need to stop thinking in terms of analogies and think about the real situation, which isn't so complicated that one cannot understand it otherwise. We are all, hopefully, familiar with the basics of the germ theory of disease. And educate yourself a little before pontificating on this topic. — SophistiCat

No offense SophistiCat, but the purpose of the analogies is to put a rational perspective on this whole situation. Right now, the general public is being fed misinformation in the form of "fear mongering" which is only making a bad situation much, much worse. We don't realize the grave impact (and soon to be irreversible mass destruction) that the social distancing of our healthy population is causing.

The justification to implement social distancing measures on healthy people is logically flawed. Science that disregards Logic = Bad Science. Our adherence to Bad Science will destroy us all.

Jack Cummins

↪Roger Gregoire

One matter which I think has not been addressed by policy makers is whether social distancing is really stopping the virus? In particular, today I heard of one person I know who has tested positive and she not been out or mixed with any other people in ages. She thinks that she must have contracted it through food delivered outside the door. So, it is questionable whether the virus is just about human transmission through contact with others or other sources, such as food.

I will also add that the person I am speaking about had shielded, because she was seen as vulnerable, and she is not even particularly ill.

The problem is that in dealing with the virus we are dealing with an unknown variable.

Roger Gregoire

↪Jack Cummins

One matter which I think has not been addressed by policy makers is whether social distancing is really stopping the virus? In particular, today I heard of one person I know who has tested positive and she not been out or mixed with any other people in ages. She thinks that she must have contracted it through food delivered outside the door. So, it is questionable whether the virus is just about human transmission through contact with others or other sources, such as food. — Jack Cummins

Empirical data tells us that not only does social distancing NOT work, but it actually makes things worse.

There is lots of social distancing going on, but yet the virus deaths are only increasing/accelerating. Also, those countries with the strictest social distancing mandates (e.g. UK, USA) are having the fastest INCREASE in covid deaths-per-capita, whereas those countries that have the least social distancing mandates (e.g. Sweden) are having the fastest DECREASE in the growth of covid deaths-per-capita.

The empirical evidence is there in front of our faces, but yet we close our eyes to it, and keep doing the same thing, and expecting a different result. ...isn't that the definition of "insanity" - doing the same thing, but yet expect a different result?

Hopefully, we wake up soon (...before it is too late!).

Jack Cummins

↪Roger Gregoire

On face level, I think your thread probably appears as if it one which favours self-centred thinking but I do believe that there is so much fear and moral panic.

I go out wearing a mask and do socially distance but I think that there is a lot of ritualistic thinking going on, as well as a whole level of demoralisation behind the surface. I certainly feel that way. I have not worked for over 6 months and cannot properly even begin to look for work because of restrictions.

At the heart of it all, there is just no possible end in sight. I plan to get the vaccine whenever I am able but felt so miserable reading in the news yesterday that the vaccine will not bring any end to social distancing. The news article even suggested that the vaccine program might be a bad thing because it might mean that people stop thinking that they need to distance any longer. With the current approach of policy makers it is hard to see any hope for a way out of the situation. Is it any wonder that people are feeling depressed and unwell mentally?

Roger Gregoire

↪Jack Cummins

At the heart of it all, there is just no possible end in sight. I plan to get the vaccine whenever I am able but felt so miserable reading in the news yesterday that the vaccine will not bring any end to social distancing. The news article even sugges ted that the vaccine program might be a bad thing because it might mean that people stop thinking that they need to distance any longer. With the current approach of policy makers it is hard to see any hope for a way out of the situation. Is it any wonder that people are feeling depressed and unwell mentally? — Jack Cummins

Well said Jack. Our current policy makers (Dr. Fauci, et al), and those that blindly follow, and enforce these policies are leading us all over the cliff.

There are many thousands of worldwide top scientists and medical experts (e.g. such as those that have signed the Great Barrington Declaration) that see the same logical error and catastrophic results (that I illustrate in this post), but yet, they are being labeled as "misinformed quacks" and effectively "silenced" (cancelled) by the mainstream media and those others that cannot see the logical implications of our current policies.

SophistiCat

Don't healthy immune systems attack and kill invading viruses? — Roger Gregoire

Only once the virus infects the organism and starts to reproduce and possibly (a) sicken the individual, (b) develop an advantageous mutation, (c) infect other people. The immune system response works to mitigates an already existing problem, a problem that could have been avoided through social distancing, among other measures.

For the most part, healthy immune systems don't replicate and spread the virus, ...they attack and kill it. — Roger Gregoire

No, immune systems don't replicate and spread the virus :roll: The virus takes care of that with the help of its host. And yes, even people with light or nonexistent symptoms replicate and spread the virus for many days after they become infected. This has been observed in numerous studies, including studies on young children.

No offense SophistiCat, but the purpose of the analogies is to put a rational perspective on this whole situation. Right now, the general public is being fed misinformation in the form of "fear mongering" which is only making a bad situation much, much worse. — Roger Gregoire

Your analogies only lead you astray. You are bone-ignorant about science and public policy, you can't formulate a sound argument to save your life, and yet you presume to advise experts and decision-makers. Normally I just ignore internet cranks, but I make an exception here, because bozos like you spread disinformation that does real harm.

Echarmion

One matter which I think has not been addressed by policy makers is whether social distancing is really stopping the virus? — Jack Cummins

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.

She thinks that she must have contracted it through food delivered outside the door. — Jack Cummins

It has been known since early last year that this could happen, but compared to direct human to human transmission it's a lot less likely.

I plan to get the vaccine whenever I am able but felt so miserable reading in the news yesterday that the vaccine will not bring any end to social distancing. — Jack Cummins

Not by itself, but it'll massively reduce the likelihood of infection and so make it much easier to weed out the virus.

Roger Gregoire

You are bone-ignorant about science and public policy, you can't formulate a sound argument to save your life, and yet you presume to advise experts and decision-makers. Normally I just ignore internet cranks, but I make an exception here, because bozos like you spread disinformation that does real harm. — SophistiCat

Just a piece of friendly advice here (if you wish to accept it)... be careful with the ad hominen attacks (the casting of insults). To many of us that value debate and discussion, when someone resorts to insults, it is an indicator of defeat; it is a big white flag; it means that they've lost the argument and they have nothing more rational to argue with.

If you wish to keep arguing (in the friendly sense), then let's do it respectfully, as it helps clarify and prove the point that this OP makes.

Echarmion

Just a piece of friendly advice here (if you wish to accept it)... be careful with the ad hominen attacks (the casting of insults). To many of us that value debate and discussion, when someone resorts to insults, it is an indicator of defeat; it is a big white flag; it means that they've lost the argument and they have nothing more rational to argue with. — Roger Gregoire

I think you'll find most people here are perfectly capable to recognise who has the better argument regardless of the tone.

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

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

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions