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

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

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

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

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

Absolutely False. — Roger Gregoire

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

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

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

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

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

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

C1 does not follow from P1, P2, and P3.

P1. Vulnerable trees die when they are burned.
P2. Hearty trees that are burned lose their flammability.
P3. The more non-flammable hearty trees you have in your forest, the greater protective effect for the vulnerable trees.
C1. Therefore, burning more hearty trees result in less burning of vulnerable trees.

Where's the flaw?

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

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

C1 wouldn't follow if you granted all three premises. It's worse than unsound... it's invalid.

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

It also tells us this takes time. More time than the virus needs to replicate. Interferons are not 100% effective, and leukocytes only work after the fact.

To defeat a serious virus infection, the body needs to build up a sufficient amount of antibodies, during which time the virus keeps reproducing.

Viruses which are unable to reproduce in the face of a healthy immune system will die out. It's the successful viruses we need to worry about.

Viruses which are unable to reproduce in the face of a healthy immune system will die out. It's the successful viruses we need to worry about. — Echarmion

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

In conclusion:

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

If we don't let our healthy population engage in mask-less social activities very soon (within the next month or two), we will reach the point-of-no-return. This is the point where the virus growth exceeds man's ability to stop this growth.

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

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

If we don't let our healthy population engage in mask-less social activities very soon (within the next month or two), we will reach the point-of-no-return. This is the point where the virus growth exceeds man's ability to stop this growth. — Roger Gregoire

Roger, you're literally saying that if we don't increase the virus growth, then the virus growth will increase out of control. That goes against all logic, common sense, and science.

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

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

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

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

Infections are the problem. More infections means more deaths. Less infections means less deaths. No infections means no deaths. Maximal spread means maximal infection. "Increase out of control" suggests there's a number of infections such that, if that number is hit, it is out of control... you get to the maximum number by infecting more people, which is exactly what you're promoting!

If we don't let our healthy population engage in mask-less social activities very soon (within the next month or two), we will reach the point-of-no-return. This is the point where the virus growth exceeds man's ability to stop this growth. — Roger Gregoire

Roger, you're literally saying that if we don't increase the virus growth, then the virus growth will increase out of control. That goes against all logic, common sense, and science. — InPitzotl

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

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

***********

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

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

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

**********

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

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

This is an analogy. In other words, no reputable doctor would ever recommend you fight an infection by keeping your white blood cells away from a bodily infection. And likewise, no reputable scientist would ever recommend we fight an infection to a segment of this planet, by keeping the healthy segment away from the infection.

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

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

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

This is an analogy. In other words, no reputable doctor would ever recommend you fight an infection by keeping your white blood cells away from a bodily infection. — Roger Gregoire

It's a false analogy. My white blood cells will fight infections that I have, if they recognize the infection. But my white blood cells are not going to fight your infection; they aren't launched into the air to seek and destroy viruses, and they don't hop into your blood stream. So from the inter-body analog to the inter-personal analog, immune people are not analogous to white blood cells.

In those two domains, there is no analog. We can fight the virus using vaccines, but vaccines don't destroy viruses either; they just train immune systems to fight it without an infection. So whereas a white blood cell attacks a virus that's there, a vaccine only works when there's no virus there.

In other words, no reputable doctor would ever recommend you fight an infection by keeping your white blood cells away from a bodily infection. And likewise, no reputable scientist would recommend we fight an infection to a segment of this planet, by keeping the healthy segment away from the infection. — Roger Gregoire

Ignoring your mixed appeal to authority fallacy and true scottsman fallacy, those two things aren't analogous.

Correct! ...and how do you stop an infection??? — Roger Gregoire

I've already discussed that before. The infections stop themselves. That fire will burn the tree, after which it's a burnt tree and the fire goes out. The main problem in a forest fire is that trees that are in the process of burning have flames on them, and those flames can jump to nearby trees. Socially distancing is analogous to building distance between the trees, such that the fire on trees that are currently burning doesn't jump to other trees. That analogy breaks down because trees are fixed in place, but we can move (nevertheless building distance between a thing to protect and the trees that are on fire is a bona fide firefighting technique).

do you keep your "healthy" cells; white blood cells away from it? — Roger Gregoire

But that's irrelevant... why do you think the white blood cells in your blood stream would fight viruses on other people?

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

What would you do if an infection was invading your (personal) body? -- would you keep the healthy white blood cells away from the infection?

If not, then why keep the healthy cells (healthy people) away from the planetary infection?

Keeping healthy cells (healthy people) away from the infection = certain death, ...in either respect!!!

I think that there are a lot of hidden aspects of life not being addressed under the guise of the importance of social distancing. One major aspect is that the whole notion of some people being more vulnerable to the virus is being used to make everyone feel guilty about being allowed to do absolutely anything at all.

What is happening is that many people who were fit and active are spending most of the time at home being told that they should only go out for essential shopping and some exercise outside. It is winter, so many cannot just go outside walking. Also, toilet facilities are shut. So, people are just staying inside.

There are concerns that the vaccine is not as effective as previously thought. I believe that it is highly unlikely that the pandemic will end for the next couple of years, at least. If people are made to feel guilty for wanting to have any kind of life at all for an endless period of time many people who have been healthy previously are going to fall by the wayside into severe physical and mental illness, and will probably die many years earlier than they would have done. That is independently of those who are likely to become homeless, and in dire poverty, as the whole economy collapses.

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

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

The time to wake up is now.

I believe that we need to wake up now. I hope that I am awake to the many dimensions of the problems of our time. However, what I see in so much of the thinking of our times is slumbering I am certainly in favour of seeing the vulnerable. However, my biggest fear is that the pandemic is creating a whole new vulnerable, which will be evident in the aftermath.

I am pretty certain we're dealing with someone with some kind of mental illness. No amount of argument will make them reconsider.

I think that there are a lot of hidden aspects of life not being addressed under the guise of the importance of social distancing. One major aspect is that the whole notion of some people being more vulnerable to the virus is being used to make everyone feel guilty about being allowed to do absolutely anything at all. — Jack Cummins

People dying is a pretty major concern though, so it's not like people are made to feel guilty over nothing. There is certainly some discussion to be had about the proper way to communicate, and whether or not suggestions are sometimes more effective than outright regulation. But we do know severe shutdowns do work, and countries that have tried other measures have by and large failed.

There are concerns that the vaccine is not as effective as previously thought. I believe that it is highly unlikely that the pandemic will end for the next couple of years, at least. — Jack Cummins

I don't see any information suggesting that. But we will probably still be facing some kind of restrictions for several months. I find it highly doubtful that any hard lockdowns would remain in place, as they're simply too expensive.

I think that my phone may have sent my post before I sent it because I was charging it.

What I would say is that while I do value social distancing I do believe that what is happening now is important to consider.Social distancing is important to protecting the vulnerable, but the restrictions of our time are also important.

A whole new vulnerable are being created and it is highly likely that many who were healthy previously are likely to die many years earlier due to the way in which restrictions are having upon their physical and mental wellbeing. I believe that we are at the beginning of something which is much larger and that it is possible that wider devastation is in our midst, although I hope that I am wrong. But I am really worried about the underlying rhetoric of the idea of social distancing, because I do not foresee the pandemic to end within the couple of years, at least, in spite of vaccines. I do believe that the inevitable is that hundreds and thousands of people are going to be affected indirectly due to the pandemic, and it is not simply those who are elderly or those who are considered vulnerable at present

You say that it is unlikely that lockdowns will be in place for long. Certainly, the way I see it in England is that the current one may go on for at least six months and that is not counting almost a year of restrictions already.

NB. I have edited this slightly because I wrote it late at night when I was feeling fed up and miserable. I am not coming from the point of view of not agreeing with social distancing itself, but more with a view that this needs to be balanced with concern about the implications of lockdown etc. I am sure that the leaders and policy makers are indeed struggling with this conundrum

@Roger Gregoire joined a few days ago. He's only posted on this one, shall we say 'eccentric"? - topic. The conspiracy is growing:

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. — Roger Gregoire

5 failings of the Great Barrington Declaration’s dangerous plan for COVID-19 natural herd immunity

Another Parler refugee. Why is he still here?

But more interestingly, why was it called Parler rather than Parlour? Was it because it's members had only third-grade spelling skills?

Expert reaction to Barrington Declaration, an open letter arguing against lockdown policies and for ‘Focused Protection’

Dr. Fauci says letting the coronavirus spread to achieve herd immunity is ‘nonsense’ and ‘dangerous’

Why a Population Immunity Strategy Won’t Work

InPitzotl, you are missing the point. — Roger Gregoire

I don't think so. If I were missing the point, that can be fixed by explaining your point. But I think I understand your point, and just think you're wrong.

If you view this planet as a singular body

That doesn't fit.

Proposed analogs are:
1. {body}cell => {planet}person
2. {body}wbc => {planet}immune person
2 is not analogous.

What would you do if an infection was invading your (personal) body? -- would you keep the healthy white blood cells away from the infection? — Roger Gregoire

Your question is fundamentally flawed; this time because you're carrying your horrible strategy into the non-analogous immune system.

If I were an immune system, then the first challenge would be identifying that there's an infection in the first place. Par for the course I would have a team going about their daily jobs of just checking everything they happen to hit to see if they seem typical; once anything seems off, I would tend to send a crack team somewhere to the off area to do anything it could... surround the area, hoping it can just isolate the threat; and maybe commit suicide if something feels a bit off. Just so you can keep track, this at macro scale might be when you're feeling normal; or might be when you start developing those things we call symptoms (sneezing, fever, cough, etc), those are part of ongoing anything-it-could fights. A virus during this period would be infecting cells and spreading to new areas.

The next step in the process is where I invoke the next strategy... I send out crack teams of cells on a potential suicide mission to experiment until they develop a way that seems to detect the threat using specific indications. The idea here is that I can fight the actual invaders fairly quickly. Once I develop these indicators, I spread this identification method to another team of specialized cells on another suicide mission... those cells will use the new detection systems to find compromised cells... cells that might look normal "to the touch", but wind up emitting these markers... those are infected cells. The job of my soldiers at this point is to kill any cell that looks like it's compromised as quick as possible, disrupting the reproduction system of said invaders.

But all of this sounds very alien when compared to your human race threatening prescriptions of humans. You see, WBC's don't work by getting infected; they work by learning to identify the threats and eliminating them. And once they do, they will fight and kill compromised cells... something we don't want to do with humans; it goes against your stated goal. If I did try your strategy, it would fail quickly along these lines. I would send my "healthy" WBC's to the infection site to get infected. Once infected, the virus will usurp those WBC's, compromising them to the point that they just generate tons more viruses and explode. Now all of my WBC's are dead and the number of viruses greatly increased and, on top of that, they have this nice convenient circulatory system to ride to nearly all other cells in the body. Not moments later, the host would surely die.

Any other questions? Oh, yes, here's one:

If not, then why keep the healthy cells (healthy people) away from the planetary infection? — Roger Gregoire

The planet is not infected; people are. Infected people crank out viruses, because that's how viruses reproduce. And we don't kill sick people like immune systems kill sick cells; that's directly against your stated goal.

Your stated goal is to minimize the deaths of people who, by your model, die when infected. Healthy people, when infected, greatly increase the amount of virus in the environment. They get infected when they are exposed, so to minimize the virus in the environment you infect as few healthy people as possible. Sick people per your model die when exposed, and they are part of the environment, which is why you don't want lots of viruses in the environment. Social distancing minimizes the amount of deadly viruses that there are in the environment; viruses don't care if they came from healthy people or vulnerable people, btw; anthropomorphizing them, they'd probably rather not kill... they want lots of nice juicy living cells to reproduce. Immune people are irrelevant; their body fights infections they happen to get (as in kills infected cells), but that doesn't affect anyone else's body.

Keeping healthy cells (healthy people) away from the infection = certain death, ...in either respect. — Roger Gregoire

How so? This violates even your own premises. Did you not stipulate that healthy people who become infected become immune? What does any healthy person have to fear, immune or no, from the virus? If they're not immune and get exposed, they'll just get immune, per your premise. If they are, they just are immune. Where is this certain death coming from?

This is logically inconsistent... it sounds more doomsaying, which smells more like psychology than good philosophy.

I am pretty certain we're dealing with someone with some kind of mental illness. — Echarmion

Yeah, I figured his posts were too lame and deranged to even qualify as dangerous misinformation. One would have to work to be misinformed by them.

Compare to this so-called Great Barrington Declaration. As wrong and mendacious as it is, it at least makes some kind of sense and was competently written, which is what makes it dangerous.

But more interestingly, why was it called Parler rather than Parlour? — Banno

I thought it was French (par-LEH)?

Ah, might be; or Italian?

Wiki agrees with you, but the citations provided do not suport it.

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

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

Although you may agree, that healthy people (those with good immune systems) in general, don't die from covid, they nonetheless CONTRIBUTE (shed) MORE virus back into the environment than they REMOVE (stop;kill), and therefore should practice social distancing to the same extent as vulnerable people (those with weak immune systems), so as to help minimize the exposure to our vulnerable people.

...is this correct?

...is this correct? — Roger Gregoire

No.

healthy people (those with good immune systems) in general, don't die from covid, — Roger Gregoire

What Young, Healthy People Have to Fear From COVID-19

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

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

Gee, it's almost like you didn't read the link...

Empirical data tells us otherwise. — Roger Gregoire

Here's some more...

COVID-19 (coronavirus): Long-term effects

Long-Term Effects of COVID-19

Younger Adults Are at Risk, Too

What are the long-lasting effects of COVID-19?

Long-term follow-up of recovered patients with COVID-19

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

Scott Atlas is absolutely correct. Look, there is only one way to end (or slow down) this virus and that is via herd immunity. I don't know of anyone that disputes this. The longer we wait and keep our healthy population hidden away (via social distancing) from implementing strategic herd immunity, the sooner we reach the point-of-no-return where we won't have enough fire extinguisher material (healthy people) to put out the huge wildfire (the growing deadlier virus). And again, look at the actual statistics, and not these specialized articles that get attention because of the fear they create. 99.1% of all deaths were of people that had at least one known underlying condition. And young people can be unhealthy too, so this is not necessarily about "age", it is more about the condition of one's immune system.

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

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

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

the "fear mongering" media, — Roger Gregoire

The articles that you link only further increase the "fear mongering" — Roger Gregoire

The conspiracy,

It's interesting how quickly you drop the "Empirical data" when it contradicts you, calling it fear mongering.

Who is Dr Scott Atlas and why are top health experts concerned about his coronavirus advice?

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

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

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

In seems that you are promoting that we do nothing to stop this virus. — Roger Gregoire

How obtuse of you.

Your individualistic ideology prevents you from seeing the decrepitude of your position. That'll by now be obvious to everyone here except yourself. And there's no helping you.