Ironically: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). — Roger Gregoire
You don't get it. If we infect everyone on the planet with covid, we would quickly develop herd immunity. The virus may even die out. Problem is, so would a lot of humans we want to keep alive. Herd immunity isn't the goal; preventing unnecessary deaths is. The get everyone sick strategy is, roughly speaking, the worst case scenario in preventing unnecessary deaths; that is precisely the strategy that maximizes death from covid.unless of course, you have no real sincere intent of trying to understand a view different than yours — Roger Gregoire
If we infect everyone on the planet with covid... — InPitzotl
I did, to emphasize the worst case scenario, and to stress the fact that this would indeed accomplish herd immunity. I believe you're experiencing a cognitive bias; "immunity" sounds good, therefore you imagine that "more immune people" must be better. But in practice, that's only true when it's true. Immunity by infection makes people sick, which increases the number of viruses tremendously. Immunity by vaccines, by contrast, doesn't. That's why we bother with vaccines in the first place.Who said anything about infecting "EVERYONE"????? — Roger Gregoire
And that will only increase the total number of viruses.We only expose the HEALTHY to covid, not the vulnerable — Roger Gregoire
But again, the problem is that immunity through infection requires healthy people to be sick. And sick healthy people make viruses. So if you compare a healthy person getting sick versus not getting sick, then all you have is more viruses versus less viruses.The healthy don't die of of exposure to covid, they gain immunity. — Roger Gregoire
Doesn't matter what it's called. What matters is what it does. If a healthy person doesn't get sick, there's no chance he'll infect a vulnerable person. If a healthy person gets sick, there's a chance he'll infect a vulnerable person. The only way to make a healthy person who isn't sick "immune by infection" is to get him sick.This is referred to as "strategic herd immunity". — Roger Gregoire
1. Minimize the number of sick people....so then what are you promoting? ...to just keep hiding and hope it goes away??? — Roger Gregoire
Then you're being dishonest. Inaction is doing nothing. Social distancing decreases the amount of infected people compared to inaction.I am only seeing excuses for 'inaction'.
We only expose the HEALTHY to covid, not the vulnerable! — Roger Gregoire
And that will only increase the total number of viruses. — InPitzotl
The healthy don't die of exposure to covid, they gain immunity. — Roger Gregoire
But again, the problem is that immunity through infection requires healthy people to be sick. — InPitzotl
The only way to make a healthy person who isn't sick "immune by infection" is to get him sick. — InPitzotl
The only viruses an immune person's immune system would fight are those that happen to make it inside that immune person's body. — InPitzotl
...so then what are you promoting? ...to just keep hiding and hope it goes away??? — Roger Gregoire
1. Minimize the number of sick people. — InPitzotl
2. Maximize immunity through vaccination. — InPitzotl
I am only seeing excuses for 'inaction'. — Roger Gregoire
Then you're being dishonest. Inaction is doing nothing. Social distancing decreases the amount of infected people compared to inaction. — InPitzotl
The only viruses an immune person's immune system would fight are those that happen to make it inside that immune person's body. — InPitzotl
You didn't address the claim made... you just addressed this fuzzy thing you called strategic herd immunity. But the quoted claim was about exposing healthy people to the virus.FALSE. Strategic herd immunity REDUCES the total number of viruses, not "increases". — Roger Gregoire
Simple; it does. Remember this particular misplaced whine?Either you believe herd immunity gives a protective effect, or you don't. ...so which is it? — Roger Gregoire
...talk about missing the point. Getting everyone sick accomplishes herd immunity (granting no mutations, but we'll grant that). That has a protective effect. But getting to that state also has a cost; that of maximizing human death from the virus. So, either your goal is to accomplish herd immunity, or your goal is to minimize death. Which is it?Who said anything about infecting "EVERYONE"??? — Roger Gregoire
Most healthy people are asymptomatic. — Roger Gregoire
That's not a state in our model. There is (A) unexposed, (B) infected, and (C1) immune. But if you want something more realistic, then this is an irrelevant nitpick, because asymptomatic carriers still produce virus.FALSE. "Sickness" is a reflection of physical symptoms — Roger Gregoire
That's irrelevant to our discussion.On the other hand, those with weaker immune systems — Roger Gregoire
And that's precisely what's dishonest. Changing the definition of inaction to equate two clearly unequal things is dishonest.I don't call "hiding" from the virus as "taking action". — Roger Gregoire
You keep making that qualification. That implies that you might agree that keeping vulnerable people away from the infected is a good idea. So for follow up questions... 1. do you in fact agree with this? And 2. if so, why do you think it is a good idea?Hiding (of healthy people) — Roger Gregoire
The virus only grows in number if it infects people. Infecting more people increases its numbers. The virus also increases numbers by replicating, and that's a prerequisite to mutating. The more viruses you create, the higher risk of mutation. So you're recommending the exact opposite strategy to attain the goal you state.only allows the virus to continue to grow and mutate, ultimately killing many more people. — Roger Gregoire
Greetings, Roger Gregoire. I am InPitzotl on philosophy forums. I like Ghost in The Shell, I love pigs, I'm a software engineer by trade, and I make it a practice to ignore euphemisms and dysphemisms.We have been brainwashed into believing the mantra "social distancing saves lives", which is true for vulnerable people, but absolutely false for healthy people — Roger Gregoire
You don't seem to have a good sense of proportion here. Imagine smoke again... a bunch of particles in the air. I get a friend into the room with me. Every smoke particle that sticks to my friend's lungs is one less particle I can potentially breathe in. Imagine a dusty floor. A dog walks across it, and then I do. Every piece of dust that gets picked up by that dog's paw is a piece of dust that cannot get my shoe dirty. But do we clear smoke from a room by dragging friends in to breathe it? Do we clean floors by sending dogs through to walk on it? No, we don't... that would be insane. There's a real effect here, but it's minuscule.For every virus that is killed by a healthy immune person, means one less virus for a vulnerable person to be potentially exposed to. — Roger Gregoire
Getting everyone sick accomplishes herd immunity… — InPitzotl
That implies that you might agree that keeping vulnerable people away from the infected is a good idea. So for follow up questions... 1. do you in fact agree with this? And 2. if so, why do you think it is a good idea? — InPitzotl
The virus only grows in number if it infects people. — InPitzotl
The virus also increases numbers by replicating, and that's a prerequisite to mutating. The more viruses you create, the higher risk of mutation. — InPitzotl
So you're recommending the exact opposite strategy to attain the goal you state. — InPitzotl
For every virus that is killed by a healthy immune person, means one less virus for a vulnerable person to be potentially exposed to. — Roger Gregoire
You don't seem to have a good sense of proportion here. Imagine smoke again... a bunch of particles in the air. I get a friend into the room with me. Every smoke particle that sticks to my friend's lungs is one less particle I can potentially breathe in. — InPitzotl
Imagine a dusty floor. A dog walks across it, and then I do. Every piece of dust that touches that dog's paw is a piece of dust that cannot get my shoe dirty. — InPitzotl
But do we clear smoke from a room by dragging friends in to breathe it? Do we clean floors by sending dogs through to walk on it? No, we don't... that would be insane. — InPitzotl
Why? All of the healthy people become immune, per our model. All vulnerable people die, per our model. Dead people can't get infected because they're dead; living people can't get infected because they're immune. That's herd immunity.This is blatantly false. — Roger Gregoire
But Roger; the environment surrounding an infected person is contaminated. So we should keep vulnerable people away from infected people. Right?It is not that we necessarily need to keep vulnerable people away from certain people, it is that we need to keep vulnerable people away from contaminated environments. — Roger Gregoire
Other than that, people either contribute (shed) viruses back into the environment or they remove (stop; kill) viruses from the environment. One or the other. — Roger Gregoire
I said exactly what my point was:And so what is your point??? — Roger Gregoire
Herd immunity is not, as you described, a matter of immune people cleaning the environment up. It's a matter of viruses dying before they infect the next guy. Your virus that has only 7 days to live can only possibly make it into the lungs of so many people in those 7 days. Out of those people, only the ones that can get infected count towards the reproduction rate. Once that rate drops to where the viruses emitted by one person infect on average less than one person (during the time that it's viable), then the rate of infections in the population drops, which puts you on a path to herd immunity.There's a real effect here, but it's minuscule. — InPitzotl
Herd immunity itself isn't bad, but herd immunity by means of a process that leaves you with avoidable casualties is.Are you trying to imply that we shouldn't try to stop this virus through herd immunity? — Roger Gregoire
Social distance and vaccinations is better. Both minimize infections....do you have a better way?
Why? All of the healthy people become immune, per our model. All vulnerable people die, per our model. Dead people can't get infected because they're dead; living people can't get infected because they're immune. That's herd immunity. — InPitzotl
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. — Roger Gregoire
Completely agree. I also completely support the premise. It would be rough for awhile, but long term effects would be less damaging than the current path. Less economic fallout, healthier general population, and another virus that no one would worry about. Totally support exposing everyone. Let the dog out and see how it runs! — Book273
Firstly; There is a world of difference between killing millions of people and letting them die. I realize that most people would not understand, or appreciate, the distinction. — Book273
Secondly; The assumption that the lockdowns, social distancing and general fall out from the Covid response will not kill millions long term is laughable. I am impressed with your naivety. — Book273
Thirdly; By not allowing natural selection to occur, through falsely propping up those who would otherwise fall, we weaken the species, thereby allowing an increase in future deaths to yet another virus. — Book273
Spoken very obediently. Well done. It is easy to say that things would be worse if we weren't doing this, very hard to prove something that isn't happening. However, the places that did nothing are in equal or slightly better position than the rest of us, so really, I am of the opinion that all of this has been a colossal waste of time and money. Things are going to kill us. That is the name of the game.
Human Life: sexually transmitted and 100% fatal. Not sure what the concern is all about. Just another thing that can, but likely won't, kill you. Why the panic? — Book273
Sweden. Better infection rates, better mortality rates. No response other than wash your hands and take care. Last I looked the US was doing better than Canada, infection and mortality wise, but I admit, it's been a few days since I bothered to look.
I find the speeches from our public health officials and leaders entertaining as hell. I also don't buy into any of it. "imagine how bad it would be if we weren't doing this..." And the ever popular "It would be working better but for the unseen non-complier..." Nonsense all around. If I tried that in business or advertising I would be charged criminally with fraud. "Use Jimmy's sleep rub and get a 20% better sleep! Slept badly after using it? Just think how much worse it would have been if you had not used it? You're welcome, buy more." I can't use that logic in business without legal reprisal, but it's ok for my public health officials? No chance. A cheap sales pitch is just that, no matter where it comes from. — Book273
What we have on hour hands is an infectious pandemic and the mode of spread is close contact - living/working in the same space, physical contact, poor hygiene. Put two and two together, what do you get? — TheMadFool
Sweden. Better infection rates, better mortality rates. No response other than wash your hands and take care. Last I looked the US was doing better than Canada, infection and mortality wise, but I admit, it's been a few days since I bothered to look. — Book273
No, this path would result in the maximum number of casualties.It would be rough for awhile, but long term effects would be less damaging than the current path. — Book273
The shit-stain is lying through his teeth. — SophistiCat
So no licking each other, spitting on each other — Book273
So I am supposed to assume that the tiny ass virus is being blocked with all the precautions, but, somehow, the hair is getting through? — Book273
We know that increased baseline health increases one's ability to fight off the virus. We know that good airflow and fresh air help reduce viral exposure. We know that UV light helps kill the virus. Public health mandates us to stay home, stay indoors, closes all the gyms, and puts in a curfew to unsure we stay indoors for 10 hours day, breathing recycled air, out of the sun. These are measures which will enhance viral infection. But the reason the numbers go up is the non-compliers. Right — Book273
The numbers go up because they are going up no matter what we do. — Book273
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.