If literally everyone stayed in their house for two weeks, the virus would die out. Obviously, this isn't very practical. So we're left with less effective measures. — Echarmion
"Objective points"? ...which ones?For example, you conspicuously ignored all the objective points raised. — Echarmion
Remember, all this started with one person on this planet; with just singular infection (in Wuhan China). — Roger Gregoire
Remember, all this started with one person on this planet; with just a singular infection (in Wuhan China). — Roger Gregoire
And yet it appears that China, along with some other countries, does have the virus under control, so apparently it is possible. — Echarmion
Herd immunity, and specifically "strategic herd immunity" is the ONLY solution we have. — Roger Gregoire
Everyone is aiming for eventual herd immunity. You just somehow seem to be of the opinion that it is better to have a few million people die to the virus quickly then much fewer people over a longer period of time. — Echarmion
Who are these "few million people"? Healthy people (those with strong immune systems with no underlying conditions that are susceptible to the ill effects of covid) in virtually all cases don't die from covid.- Look at the scientific empirical evidence/data. And stop listening the the "fear mongering" media. — Roger Gregoire
People without strong immune systems are still people, are they not? — Echarmion
And contrary to the fear mongering news, healthy people in general don't die of covid, but yet we are preventing these healthy people from acquiring herd immunity that could ultimately save many millions more from dying. Go figure. — Roger Gregoire
Acquiring herd immunity by being infected by the actual virus (as opposed to a vaccine) does not save people from dying. — Echarmion
...the general rule is that the more people that are infected, the more will die. — Echarmion
So here I've underlined something... presumably this is the goal.1. Vulnerable people die from covid
2. Healthy people gain immunity from covid.
3. Herd immunity: the more healthy immune people out in society creates a greater protective effect to the vulnerable (i.e. the less deaths of vulnerable people). — Roger Gregoire
But that's a false comparison. A healthy person can only lead to a vulnerable person dying by becoming a vector, and the only way that happens is by infection; A->B->C1. That the person winds up immune is inconsequential; the entire risk is that person being in state B for any time at all. By contrast, vaccination takes a healthy person from state A directly to C1, bypassing state B. Since the only possible risk factor is being in state B, and that only happens via infection, you're comparing the only possible way that a healthy person could cause another to die to a process that makes that impossible.This is not correct. We can achieve herd immunity through infection, vaccination, and/or the combination of both. — Roger Gregoire
Not quite.
1. Vulnerable people die from covid
2. Healthy people gain immunity from covid.
3. Herd immunity: the more healthy immune people out in society creates a greater protective effect to the vulnerable (i.e. the less deaths of vulnerable people). — Roger Gregoire
Significant herd protection requires probably at least 60% of the population to be immune. I trust you can make your own calculation, based on current death rates, as to what it would mean to get there. — Echarmion
You are falsely confusing the "threshold value" as the starting point of protection. Herd immunity is not like a light switch that starts protecting when we reach this value. The 'threshold value' is just the theoretical point where the virus stops spreading altogether. We don't have to wait til we get 60% to get protection. One healthy person by himself provides some level of protection. And the more, the merrier. — Roger Gregoire
For example, imagine a very deep swimming pool that can hold up to 100 people. If 60 healthy good swimmers were equally scattered in the pool, then it is guaranteed that if a vulnerable non-swimmer fell in, that there would always be a healthy swimmer close enough to prevent the vulnerable non-swimmer from drowning. — Roger Gregoire
Now imagine that authorities tell everyone (both healthy and vulnerable) to get out of the pool for fear that a non-swimmer might drown if he falls in. So now when a non-swimmer accidentally falls in, there is no one there to save him; he has 0% chance of survival. And if there were 1 healthy swimmer in the pool when this poor non-swimmer fell in then there would be a chance that this non-swimmer could have been saved. And if there were 2 healthy swimmers in this pool, then this doubles the chance the non-swimmer could be saved, and the more healthy swimmers in the pool the more likely the non-swimmer could be saved, until we reach 60 healthy swimmers, then we have 100% (theoretical) certainty that no non-swimmer could ever drown. — Roger Gregoire
For discussion purposes only, I'll oversimplify. Let's say everyone is either healthy, or vulnerable. — InPitzotl
I'll grant 1 and 2 literally; vulnerable people who get sick die, and healthy people who get sick become immune. Unstated, for simplicity, let's presume that everyone who is vaccinated becomes immune. — InPitzotl
But here's how the mechanics work. Everyone starts out uninfected, call that state (A). They can become infected, state (B), if exposed to a carrier. — InPitzotl
A carrier is essentially another person in state (B). — InPitzotl
I'm just still confused how you think exposing more people to the virus somehow leads to less deaths overall. — Echarmion
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. — unenlightened
It is the healthy people that we "expose" to the virus, NOT the vulnerable. This is commonly referred to as "strategic herd immunity". And from an overly simplistic view, the logic goes like this: — Roger Gregoire
But that's irrelevant. The only way your contaminated environment can get contaminated is by putting viruses into that environment, and that requires the viruses to exist. Viruses are only made by virus factories, and whereas viruses don't reproduce on their own, the only type of virus factory is a carrier. Whether Fred swapped spit or got infected from a contaminated environment is irrelevant.Technically people don't get the virus directly from another person (unless maybe they were french kissing and they swap spit), they get the virus from being in a contaminated environment, as illustrated in the analogy as being the tacks on the highway. — Roger Gregoire
A C1 person isn't "stronger", they're just immune to this specific virus. Immunity of this type works by a lock and key mechanism; an immune system recognizes a specific threat it was formerly exposed to, and can attack that threat. Consider Joe, a local, who is immune to hundreds of local diseases. And consider John, a regular traveller, who is immune to thousands of tropical diseases. Joe is in state C1, because he was previously exposed and recovered. John is in state A, because he just happened to avoid this virus. Then presumably John is "stronger" than Joe, because his immune has thousands of keys, but that does not offer him any advantage against this virus. Joe is "weaker"; his immune system only has hundreds of keys, but one of those keys fits this virus's lock. But John can still get infected; Joe cannot. So it's not about "stronger" and "weaker"; it is simply about having or not having this key.2. Cars with good tire tread crush tacks (kill covid virus) and get stronger when on the highway (out in society). — Roger Gregoire
Your analogy is horrible. Imagine that I have viruses everywhere on my feet and hands, and all over my clothes; i.e., my car has tacks all over it. I take off my clothes and wash them, wash my hands and feet, and in this scenario just happen to not get infected. Then I'm never in state B. The fact that the virus was all over my body is irrelevant; since I'm never infected by them, those viruses may as well be in China.State B - All cars can be infected with tacks, if exposed to tacks on the highway. — Roger Gregoire
Exposing healthy people automatically also exposes vulnerable people. — Echarmion
The only way your contaminated environment can get contaminated is by putting viruses into that environment, and that requires the viruses to exist. Viruses are only made by virus factories, and whereas viruses don't reproduce on their own, the only type of virus factory is a carrier. — InPitzotl
Imagine that I have viruses everywhere on my feet and hands, and all over my clothes; i.e., my car has tacks all over it. I take off my clothes and wash them, wash my hands and feet, and in this scenario just happen to not get infected. Then I'm never in state B. The fact that the virus was all over my body is irrelevant; since I'm never infected by them, those viruses may as well be in China. — InPitzotl
And just to be crystal clear, the degree that talking about tack-locks converting cars without the fitting tack-key converts tack-lock-infested cars into tack factories that leak out the tacks sounds like a silly mental image, is precisely the degree to which your analogy is misleading. — InPitzotl
No, it fails. In your car universe, a car would be in state B if and only if the tacks converted the car into a tack factory. But your story claims that state B is simply having tacks get stuck in tires. A person infected by a virus, by definition, is a person whose living cells the virus usurped into reproduction.The car analogy fits perfect. You may have the virus all over your body (as with tacks all over the good tread of tires), but once the virus finds a host, i.e. gets into your respiratory system (within the soft bald section of the tire) then replication begins. — Roger Gregoire
Sure, but immune people shed about as much as scotch tape with viruses stuck on it, viruses that get buried for 7 days under mounds of paper, or viruses trapped in soap bubbles that will disintegrate in 10 seconds.So then do you agree that vulnerable people shed more than immune people? ...right? — Roger Gregoire
Wrong. Vulnerable versus healthy makes no difference. Contributors are infected people, whether healthy or vulnerable. Vulnerable versus healthy only changes one thing, irrelevant to transmission... whether that infected contributor eventually becomes immune and no longer spreads/produces the virus as a result of being immune, or whether that infected contributor eventually becomes dead and no longer spreads/produces the virus as a result of not being alive.relatively speaking, vulnerable people are 'Contributors' and immune people are 'Removers', ...right? — Roger Gregoire
Firstly, vulnerable people catch the virus by exposing themselves to contaminated environments and surfaces (and not necessarily 'directly' from other people). — Roger Gregoire
For the most part, people with healthy immune systems don't replicate and shed the virus, ...they attack and kill it! — Roger Gregoire
1. The healthier the immune system, the more it kills the virus, and the less it spreads it (as there is naturally less (or none) to spread). Healthy people are the 'Removers' of virus contamination. — Roger Gregoire
2. The weaker the immune system, the less it kills the virus, and the more it spreads (as the virus replicates itself it becomes easier and more of it to spread). Vulnerable people are the 'Contributors' of virus contamination. — Roger Gregoire
You're making this sound like healthy people clean up the environment, but it doesn't really work like that. — InPitzotl
Imagine a contaminated gas station, and let's just say that our goal is to decontaminate it. The best case scenario for healthy persons to decontaminate the gas station would require them to go in and literally rub their bodies against all surfaces; and even that wouldn't really be all that effective... you'd do far better just breaking out a sponge and soapy water, which would actually work pretty well for the decontamination, than you could hope to do by exploiting this healthy human. Possibly you'd do better in your sanitation using a lint roller than your immune human. — InPitzotl
Vulnerable versus healthy makes no difference. Contributors are infected people, whether healthy or vulnerable. — InPitzotl
Firstly, vulnerable people catch the virus by exposing themselves to contaminated environments and surfaces (and not necessarily 'directly' from other people). — Roger Gregoire
How do you know this? What research has been done on direct Vs indirect exposure? — Echarmion
Yes, healthy immune people "clean up" (kill the virus; stop the spread of) covid-19 contamination. If this were not true, then herd immunity would be impossible. — Roger Gregoire
Where the healthy immune human may be more efficient at decontaminating, is through breathing in air borne viruses. Basically the healthy immune human is an air filtration system, breathing in virus contaminated air, and expelling less virus than they take in. Continual breathing one breath after another will slowly filter (remove) virus from the air. — Roger Gregoire
Healthy immune systems allow less total virus replication, which thereby means LESS to spread. — Roger Gregoire
Okay, so let's focus on the air path then. Your theory is that human breathing works as an air filter; but the contact thing is still true. Respiratory viruses (of which this is one) infect people by physically contacting those nice wet warm surfaces inside our lungs. But viruses are abstract; they're invisible, which is part of the problem, so it's hard to visualize them.Where the healthy immune human may be more efficient at decontaminating, is through breathing in air borne viruses. Basically the healthy immune human is an air filtration system, breathing in virus contaminated air, and expelling less virus than they take in. Continual breathing one breath after another will slowly filter (remove) virus from the air. — Roger Gregoire
But you're comparing irrelevant factors. Let H(B) be the amount of viruses produced by a healthy infected person; and V(B) be the amount produced by a vulnerable infected person. If there are h healthy people infected and v vulnerable infected, then we have as a baseline h*H(B)+v*V(B) viruses produced. If h1<h2, then the difference between h2 and h1 healthy people getting infected is a contribution of (h2-h1)*H(B) viruses, and that's positive given only that H(B)>0, which it is. In other words, infecting more healthy people adds a risk proportional to H(B) times that many healthy people; that H(B)<V(B) is lovely and all, but that risk is still necessarily positive when H(B)>0, which it is.Healthy immune systems allow less total virus replication, which thereby means LESS to spread.
Weak immune systems allow more total virus replication, which thereby means MORE to spread. — Roger Gregoire
You severely misunderstand herd immunity. You said it yourself; the virus in your model is only viable for 7 days. That's the main factor. So a virus has a lifetime; it's born day 0 in an infected person. For viruses to infect another person, it has to make it from this person in state B to a person in state A, in a sufficient quantity to cause that person to get infected. Since the lifetime is 7 days, then on average the viruses produced by this state B person need to infect at least one other person (in state A) within 7 days. If that average becomes less than one person, then the number of infected people would start to drop; that roughly represents less density of the virus in the population than required to infect the next guy. Once that happens, the living virus's population will tend to drift down to 0, and once that happens, you have herd immunity.And again, healthy immune people "clean up" (stop the spread of) covid-19 contamination. If this were not true, then herd immunity would be impossible. — Roger Gregoire
Immune people will "kill" whatever virus enters their system, but obviously this doesn't mean that they don't infect vulnerable people before they are immune. — Echarmion
And the reason herd immunity works is not that immune people actively remove the contagion, they just don't actively spread it. — Echarmion
A healthy immune system will not stop the virus from reproducing and spreading. — Echarmion
Okay, so let's focus on the air path then. Your theory is that human breathing works as an air filter; but the contact thing is still true. Respiratory viruses (of which this is one) infect people by physically contacting those nice wet warm surfaces inside our lungs. — InPitzotl
So let's visualize how this works by something easier to imagine... visible smoke. Smoke is just smoke particles suspended in air, and just like those viruses would stick on your nice wet warm alveoli, smoke particles would also stick to those (analogously we could talk about how breathing in carcinogenic smoke can cause lung cancer in this manner, but that's unnecessary, other than to demonstrate the validity of this analogy). So your healthy human can only clean up viruses by breathing the same manner that any breathing human can clean up the smoke from the room by breathing, since it's essentially the same exact kind of contact in both scenarios, with more or less the same effect (particles getting stuck to aveoli; be they smoke particles or viruses). — InPitzotl
I think you can see where I'm going here. The analogous situation is that you're going to clear out a smoke filled room by sending humans inside it to breathe. That will indeed clear the smoke, a trivial amount, but it's way below the level of even simply opening a window. — InPitzotl
Healthy immune systems allow less total virus replication, which thereby means LESS to spread.
Weak immune systems allow more total virus replication, which thereby means MORE to spread. — Roger Gregoire
But you're comparing irrelevant factors. Let H(B) be the amount of viruses produced by a healthy infected person; and V(B) be the amount produced by a vulnerable infected person. If there are h healthy people infected and v vulnerable infected, then we have as a baseline h*H(B)+v*V(B) viruses produced. — InPitzotl
2. If you want to stop the covid virus, then use healthy immune people. — Roger Gregoire
Absolutely False. — Roger Gregoire
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.