Sorry but it's a ridiculous premise. "we will do massive collateral damage, requiring generations to rebuild. Lives will be lost, economies will collapse, and possibly wars may start. But we can SLOW IT DOWN, a little." Seriously, terrible plan. — Book273
All of the healthy people become immune, per our model. All vulnerable people die, per our model. — InPitzotl
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
But Roger; the environment surrounding an infected person is contaminated. So we should keep vulnerable people away from infected people. Right? — InPitzotl
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. — InPitzotl
Herd immunity itself isn't bad, but herd immunity by means of a process that leaves you with avoidable casualties is. — InPitzotl
Social distance and vaccinations is better. Both minimize infections. — InPitzotl
Totally support exposing everyone. Let the dog out and see how it runs! — Book273
The other is that "healthy" people still die or experience significant complications, and we only have limited resources to deal with that as well. — Echarmion
Sweden. Better infection rates, better mortality rates. No response other than wash your hands and take care. — Book273
Name calling isn't helpful. — Book273
Sweden: 1:942 Finland: 1:8734 Norway: 1:9835 Denmark: 1:3050
USA: 1:804 Canada: 1:2031
Vulnerable people die when infected, by our model. They get infected when exposed to viruses in the environment. Infected people produce viruses. More viruses means more chances of getting vulnerable people infected.Vulnerable people don't die when healthy become immune. Vulnerable people only die if we don't protect them from the virus. — Roger Gregoire
No, vulnerable people are protected via herd immunity by not having any viruses around them.Vulnerable people are protected (via herd immunity) by being surrounded by healthy immune people.
No. A viral infection is when a virus infects you; that means it infects your cells, and that means it's reproducing. One virus makes many for each cell it infects. This being a respiratory virus, the first cells it infects are those on the air border. With every breath, a healthy person breathes out viruses. This is how viruses work. This is what infections are. What do you think infected even means in the context of viral infection?But if you are saying - a 'healthy' infected person contaminates (sheds) lots of virus… - then no, I disagree, because healthy infected people remove more of the virus than they shed. — Roger Gregoire
See above. Viruses die in 7 days per our model. The only way they can continue to exist after 7 days is to infect someone else, thereby producing more viruses....which is the same thing as I said. Viruses die (are killed) within healthy people, and replicate and shed within vulnerable people. — Roger Gregoire
In our model, they do. We can quibble; if we do, I would point out that healthy people don't necessarily survive. But none of this matters regarding your wrongness, because we can define this out, given you're only talking about vague undefined concepts; healthy people by definition are those that survive covid, and vulnerable people by definition are those that die. Now the only weakness are exceptions like people getting sick, recovering, but not developing immunities, and so on, which we can ignore for this discussion, because even if we do you're still wrong based on how things actually work.Note: vulnerable people don't necessarily die when infected, but they certainly replicate and shed the virus big time. — Roger Gregoire
The vulnerable people who die as a consequence of viruses put into the environment due to your naively infecting healthy people. Per our model, only vulnerable people die anyway, and healthy people would survive anyway. You still get herd immunity, but that can't very well save a life you slaughtered on the way to it now, can it?...what casualties? ...healthy people don't die from herd immunity? ...and vulnerable people are protected? ...so who is dying, ...what causalties? — Roger Gregoire
Nonsense. It results in less people infected at once which allows hospitals to not be overflowed. It buys time, which can be used to vaccinate people. And if practiced correctly there's a chance the virus could just die out on its own, not that human behavior would in practice support that.Social distancing of the healthy population destroys any gains made by the social distancing of the vulnerable. — Roger Gregoire
We only practice social distancing with people who have a chance of being infected. In our model, everyone vaccinated is immune. Worry about this model first, until you understand the basics, then we can talk about something more realistic.Vaccinations are great, but if we social distance our vaccinated population then no gains will be made, as this only puts us right back in the mess we are in now. — Roger Gregoire
That effect is fictional. Viruses have to find their way from ground 0, the infected person, to another person they can infect, within 7 days (per our model). Viruses cannot infect immune people. That's the real driver of herd immunity. It's not that your immune people are cleaning the environment; immune systems don't work that way. They only fight infections within the host. It's just that they're not getting infected; a person who isn't infected just doesn't help the virus survive past those 7 days.If vaccinated people don't enter society to give a protective effect (i.e. remove more virus than it sheds) — Roger Gregoire
if you are saying - a 'healthy' infected person contaminates (sheds) lots of virus… - then no, I disagree, because healthy infected people remove more of the virus than they shed. — Roger Gregoire
What makes you think that the hardships and deaths that are and will be due to the lockdowns and economic donwnturn _aren't_ "natural selection"?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
Healthy people, in general, don't die, or have symptoms when exposed to covid. Look at the actual statistics, and not the news that likes to hype the rare 'exceptions' to the rule. — Roger Gregoire
...what casualties? ...healthy people don't die from [strategic] herd immunity, ...and vulnerable people are protected — Roger Gregoire
The vulnerable people who die as a consequence of viruses put into the environment due to your naively infecting healthy people. — InPitzotl
Healthy people, in general, don't die, or have symptoms when exposed to covid. Look at the actual statistics, and not the news that likes to hype the rare 'exceptions' to the rule. — Roger Gregoire
With 7 Billion people, rare exceptions still happen a lot. — Echarmion
You seem to be presuming that this is a matter of "playing the right side". It's not; it's about reality. This isn't about you versus the media or whatever other boogey man you dream up; this is about you versus how things actually work. If the media disagrees, the media's wrong. If you disagree, you're wrong. In the end, actual reality will unfold as a result of things we do, and that's the key to actually pulling off whatever strategy we implement.You seem to be playing both sides of the fence here. — Roger Gregoire
Neither. Your question in 1 is a leading question, and the underlying premise of the question is wrong. Your ideas of herd immunity are fictional. Herd immunity isn't driven by healthy people cleaning up the virus; the only role healthy people play is not getting infected.1. Do healthy immune people SAVE vulnerable people (via herd immunity)? ...or
2. Do healthy immune people KILL vulnerable people (via viral spread)? — Roger Gregoire
This is misguided. You said it yourself:If herd immunity is our ONLY solution to saving vulnerable people, then what are we waiting for? — Roger Gregoire
The issue is that promoting immunity by infection can only possibly increase the viruses in the environment. If our stated goal is to maximize the number of vulnerable people that survive, then the only thing we're after is maximizing the number of vulnerable people that survive. If herd immunity through vaccination kills less people than herd immunity through infection, we should prefer that strategy, because that's our goal. Right?We can achieve herd immunity through infection, vaccination, and/or the combination of both. — Roger Gregoire
More dysphemisms. It's not fear, Roger, it's strategy. We care about humans, but this would work the same way in a simulation of weebles, where we just have a score.Is it the fear that some of these vulnerable people might die? — Roger Gregoire
This is like the old joke: "Q: How many legs does a dog have, if you call the tail a leg? A: Four. Calling the tail a leg doesn't make it a tail." Here, you have insisted on calling social distancing "hiding" and "inaction". But it's clearly not the same thing. So your insistence should be ignored. At best, you're rationalizing equivocation, but you can't very well expect me to conform to a demand by you of irrationality just by using your preferred label. Sir, you're on a philosophy forum. That garbage strategy isn't going to fly.Sorry, and no offense, but this just seems to be an excuse for "inaction", or an excuse to just keep hiding (social distancing), and allowing the virus to continue killing our vulnerable. — Roger Gregoire
...as I said before, let's get the facts right on this model first.And furthermore, — Roger Gregoire
Quite literally, a fan and an open window would help a vulnerable person far more than violating the fire code in his residence with immune people. Herd immunity doesn't work the way you describe... your concept of it is fictional.This vaccine should empower all healthy immune people (including those previously infected and those recently vaccinated) to immediately rip their masks off and start socializing asap to develop herd immunity to protect the vulnerable, including the vulnerable who are too vulnerable to accept a vaccine. — Roger Gregoire
Hardly any word/concept has been so debated as "natural".However, if you would like to open the descriptor of "natural" to include any event which leads to any death, then yes, those who die from collateral damage would be considered, as per your interpretation, as "natural selection", however, once that has been allowed, everything would fall under said category and it would become effectively useless as a descriptor. — Book273
1. Do healthy immune people SAVE vulnerable people (via herd immunity)? — Roger Gregoire
Your question in 1 is a leading question, and the underlying premise of the question is wrong. — InPitzotl
This is misguided. You said it yourself --> Roger Gregoire said - "We can achieve herd immunity through infection, vaccination, and/or the combination of both." — InPitzotl
"There are two paths to herd immunity for COVID-19 — vaccines and infection." — Mayo Clinic
Here, you have insisted on calling social distancing "hiding"... — InPitzotl
This is an argument from authority fallacy. You don't know what you're talking about; Dr. Fauci looks like a pretty bright fellow to me, so I highly doubt he'd make such a silly mistake as you did. Here's a quote from the wiki article:Virtually all reputable medical scientists on this planet (even Dr. Fauci) agree that #1 is true. — Roger Gregoire
Here's the difference between what you said, and what I said:Immune individuals are unlikely to contribute to(a) disease transmission, disrupting chains of infection, which stops or slows the spread of disease. The greater the proportion of immune individuals in a community, the smaller the probability that non-immune individuals will come into contact with an infectious individual.(b) — Wikipedia article
Do healthy immune people SAVE vulnerable people (via herd immunity)? — Roger Gregoire
What I said matches (a), and matches (b). What you said does not match (a) and does not match (b).the only role healthy people play is not getting infected. — InPitzotl
Agree with what? The thing I said was misguided wasn't even a statement; it was a question. This question:Yes, what I said is true. And again, virtually all reputable medical scientists on this planet agree with me. — Roger Gregoire
You're effectively saying: "virtually all reputable medical scientists agree that 'if herd immunity is our ONLY solution to saving vulnerable people, then what are we waiting for?'", which is incoherent.If herd immunity is our ONLY solution to saving vulnerable people, then what are we waiting for? — Roger Gregoire
Nope, they're correct. Recall that I said that getting everyone sick will lead to herd immunity; that's also correct. But it also is a worst case scenario for saving lives. Your misguided question confuses achieving herd immunity with saving lives. The problem is, as I've repeated, herd immunity will only protect people who are alive at the time it's attained; it does not protect the people you slaughtered on the way to attain it.Is the Mayo Clinic also "misguided"? — Roger Gregoire
Sure, you can call it anything you like, but names don't change facts. But it would appear the only reason you call it "hiding" is to try to paint it sour as a poor substitute for giving a rational argument against it. And intentionally equating social distancing to inaction is just being blatantly anti-logic.Yes, "social distancing" is nothing more than "hiding" from the virus, pure and simple. If you want to pretend that it isn't, ...then that is your choice, ...but I prefer to call it as it is. — Roger Gregoire
Roger, what are you doing here? If your aim is to convince someone you're correct, try logic instead of irrationality. If all you're doing is disagreeing to defend your opinion, you're not going to accomplish much here. — InPitzotl
Not really. Rationality doesn't mean that Roger doesn't understand. You're committing logical fallacies.This is funny that you say this, because this is exactly how I see your responses. Isn't it interesting how we each see the other as the irrational one? — Roger Gregoire
A logical flaw is something that does not logically follow, not something Roger disagrees with, or something Roger doesn't understand.This is irrational (logically flawed), — Roger Gregoire
If a sore gets infected by bacteria, I don't get sick either. But the bacteria grows. Your distinction is a red herring.for we gain herd immunity through infection and/or vaccination, and it is well known there are very many people who are asymptomatic (do not get sick) when infected, and very many people who also do not get sick when vaccinated. — Roger Gregoire
That the reasoning has consequences doesn't mean it has a logical flaw. A logical flaw is when something does not logically follow.This is irrational (logically flawed), for if this were true, then herd immunity would be easy to achieve. — Roger Gregoire
So let me understand your logic. Roger says that herd immunity is a function of healthy people getting immune and cleaning up the environment. I, and wikipedia, say that herd immunity is a function of building greater "distance" between infected people and people who can get infected by converting the population into mostly immune people. So here, Roger is going to prove his theory of herd immunity by... changing my description of herd immunity, then attacking it on the basis that his straw version would be easy. Therefore, Roger's version is correct. Is this how your logic works?Imagine having a room full of people (both vulnerable and healthy) and we put all the healthy people in space suits (to guarantee that none of them get infected), then according to your logic, we could achieve herd immunity in the room.
Or better yet, we could create herd immunity on a larger scale by shipping all healthy people in Oklahoma to Arizona (which guarantees no infection of healthy people in Oklahoma), and voila, the 100% vulnerable people remaining in Oklahoma are now instantly and magically immune, and protected from the virus!
Begging the question. I've explained several times why that's unrealistic. But now you're trying to prove it with a straw man.In actuality, herd immunity works because healthy immune people remove (stop/kill) more of the virus from the environment than they contribute (shed/spread) into the environment, — Roger Gregoire
It's not that they aren't getting infected; it's that the distance between infected people and the next person that can be infected exceeds the infection range. Read the wikipedia article. Look at the picture at the very least....and NOT because they are just standing there "not getting infected" within a crowd (herd) of people.
1. "getting everyone sick will lead to herd immunity" -- InPitzotl
This is irrational (logically flawed), for we gain herd immunity through infection and/or vaccination, and it is well known there are very many people who are asymptomatic (do not get sick) when infected, and very many people who also do not get sick when vaccinated. — Roger Gregoire
If a sore gets infected by bacteria, I don't get sick either. But the bacteria grows. Your distinction is a red herring. — InPitzotl
If a sore gets infected by bacteria, I don't get sick either. But the bacteria grows. Your distinction is a red herring. — InPitzotl
Underlined is an appeal to motive fallacy.Your response attempts to change the direction of the discussion (by creating a stinky diversionary distraction; aka "red herring") away from Rogers words, so as to prevent us from looking at the actual logic presented by Roger. — Roger Gregoire
If you would like, we could also break down, analyze, and expose the logical error (irrationality) of your statement --> 2. "the only role healthy people play in herd immunity is by not getting infected" -- InPitzotl — Roger Gregoire
You are making a distinction between "sick" and "infected"; per that distinction, "sick" means symptomatic, and infections don't require symptoms. But according to your premises P1-P3, herd immunity is related to infections, not sickness. Apparently, you're trying to make the point that this distinction is irrelevant. And that's the same thing I said; that this distinction is irrelevant. So what is the problem? — InPitzotl
Incidentally, C1 follows from your premises, but C2 does not. Yet C2 has the word "therefore" in it. So how exactly did you reach conclusion C2? — InPitzotl
2. "the only role healthy people play in herd immunity is by not getting infected" -- InPitzotl
No logical error there. What I describe actually works. To demonstrate, I coded it... the code is here: https://pastebin.com/JgC6UkND ...should be run in a terminal with any generic term that does basic escape codes (cygwin, linux, w/e). — InPitzotl
Well, yeah, C2 does not follow. My program in effect proves that.No problem with my logic. — Roger Gregoire
Sickness might I remind you using your definition, which is a distinction I'm not making. But here we are, talking about this irrelevancy. This is a distraction.f my premises are true, then sickness is irrelevant. — Roger Gregoire
Nope.C2 follows from C1 — Roger Gregoire
No, C1 is the negation of this claim, call it X: "everyone must get sick to gain herd immunity", which denies that herd immunity can be accomplished through any means except for getting everyone sick. C2 is the negation of this claim, call it Y: "getting everyone sick will lead to herd immunity", which allows for other methods of attaining herd immunity. Y=true, X=false is logically consistent under the condition that getting everyone sick attains herd immunity but there's another way to attain it. So C2 cannot follow from C1.C1 says "sickness is irrelevant". — Roger Gregoire
My coding demonstrates that the thing I described works. That refutes this claim:Your coding sidesteps the issue (and "begs-the-question"). The question is how/why herd immunity works in the first place. — Roger Gregoire
...because this is, in fact, possible; given the program works, that is proof by demonstration. And, it proves by demonstration that this is false:If this were not true, then herd immunity would be impossible. — Roger Gregoire
...since this model does indeed demonstrate a protective effect without that condition you say is the only way to do so.Logically, the only way healthy immune people can provide a protective effect (herd immunity), is if they stop/adsorb/kill the virus around them (in their local environment). — Roger Gregoire
The code isn't coding for a protective effect. It's coding for the premises. Line 10 has the states discussed earlier. Line 17 implements a person with those states at some location, with a vulnerable flag. Line 145 implements population of the world; it scatters people randomly using a Mersenne twister from the language's standard library. At line 209 it connects people to neighbors that fall within the infection range. Line 236 implements the display of each stage. Each step is implemented by the method at line 268. That method kills off any vulnerable infected people, makes immune any healthy infected person, and infects everyone in the infection range.InPitzotl, your coding "begs-the-question", it pre-assumes the conclusion. — Roger Gregoire
298 is where neighbors are infected. Note that they are only infected if they are in Uninfected state. I.e., the healthy immune people (vulnerable=false, state=Immune) are literally "standing around not getting infected". The running program demonstrates the protective effect.You need to show your logic (and don't automatically assume it) that "healthy immune people standing around not getting infected" logically results in "herd immunity; protective effect to the vulnerable". — Roger Gregoire
You're trying to wring blood from a stone.I'll wait. — Roger Gregoire
Are you talking about this P2?:So then, what is P2? — Roger Gregoire
That's your premise, not part of my model. Sick per your definition is irrelevant.P2. Many vaccinated people also don't get sick. — Roger Gregoire
In reference to your edits, don't go by what you said my premises are, go by what I said. Here I've correlated the code directly to the first post where I discussed the model. Refer to the running simulation for a demonstration of the protective effect; note that there's none in these runs in all scenarios up to 50% vaccination; at 80% you see some effect; at 95% more.For discussion purposes only, I'll oversimplify. Let's say everyone is either healthy, or vulnerable {line 18}. I'll grant 1 and 2 literally; vulnerable people who get sick die, and healthy people who get sick become immune {line 284}. Unstated, for simplicity, let's presume that everyone who is vaccinated becomes immune {line 174, part of setup}.
But here's how the mechanics work. Everyone starts out uninfected, call that state (A) {line 26}. They can become infected, state (B), if exposed to a carrier {line 298}. A carrier is essentially another person in state (B). Then if the person is healthy, they go to state (C1), immune {line 293}. If they are vulnerable, they go to state (C2), dead {line 287}. So in these terms we want to minimize the number of people in state (C2), death by covid. — InPitzotl
If this were true, then we could simply lock up all healthy immune people in quarantine, and voila, then we would magically achieve herd immunity and save all the vulnerable people. — Roger Gregoire
InPitzotl, your coding/program/model all "beg-the-question", it pre-assumes the conclusion. You need to show your logic (and don't automatically assume it). Show the missing premise P2 that logically connects P1. to C1.
P1. Healthy immune people not getting infected.
P2. (...missing)
C1. Therefore, we get herd immunity; protection for our vulnerable people. — Roger Gregoire
So then, what is P2? How do we get from P1 to C1? — Roger Gregoire
Are you talking about this P2?: "P2. Many vaccinated people also don't get sick." That's your premise, not part of my model. Sick per your definition is irrelevant. — InPitzotl
But here's how the mechanics work. Everyone starts out uninfected, call that state (A) {line 26}. They can become infected, state (B), if exposed to a carrier {line 298}. A carrier is essentially another person in state (B). — InPitzotl
Refer to the running simulation for a demonstration of the protective effect; note that there's none in these runs in all scenarios up to 50% vaccination; at 80% you see some effect; at 95% more.
2. "the only role healthy people play in herd immunity is by not getting infected" -- InPitzotl
If this were true, then we could simply lock up all healthy immune people in quarantine, and voila, then we would magically achieve herd immunity and save all the vulnerable people. — Roger Gregoire
This is absolutely and demonstrably true, so I don't see how you think it supports your view.
If we locked up all the healthy people and left the others exactly where they are geographically, we would indeed have reached herd immunity. The remaining viable hosts would be, on average, too socially isolated to transmit the virus to new non-immune hosts and so the virus (being unable to live outside of a non-immune host) would die. — Isaac
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.