Seriously? ...you are playing games, ...you know very well what P2 I am referring too. — Roger Gregoire

No, Roger, you know what P2 you are referring to, which is why I asked. You have three P2's on this page (one edited in after I replied):

Roger's logic: ...
P2. Many vaccinated people also don't get sick. — Roger Gregoire

InPitzotl's response: ...
P2. But the bacteria grows. — Roger Gregoire

P1. Healthy immune people not getting infected. ...
P2. (...missing) — Roger Gregoire

P1. Healthy immune people not getting infected.
P2. (...missing)
C1. Therefore, we get herd immunity; protection for our vulnerable people — Roger Gregoire

I'm not sure what you're even trying to do here. P1 is a sentence fragment, but it sounds like a model assumption. C1 looks like a model observation in a specific scenario; e.g., what this program produced with the inputs in the 90% scenario. Are you trying to get me to prove that the computer that ran this didn't go haywire?

The starting condition (inputs) of your model is flawed, which results in unreliable results. — Roger Gregoire

Defined flawed. Do you mean by flawed anything different than I mean here?:

For discussion purposes only, I'll oversimplify. — InPitzotl

The model assumptions are admittedly unrealistic. But there's one thing irrefutable about it; whatever the model did, that is what it did. The 80% scenario in this model managed to save 4 vulnerable people. The 95% scenario managed to save 12 vulnerable people. So apparently, one can indeed get a protective effect this way. (See below... just a couple of paragraphs).

First error. People don't get infected from other people. They get infected by being in(<-A) a contaminated environment.(<-B) — Roger Gregoire

Are you sure you phrased your objection right? This isn't missing from the model. In the model, there is a contaminated environment; all locations that are within the specified radius (5 in all scenarios shown) of an infected person are contaminated. And in the model, people get infected by being in that contaminated environment. In this model, they are always infected, unconditionally, if they are in this environment.

I'm not able to open and see your actual coding. What equation are you using to yield herd immunity (the protection effect to the vulnerable)? — Roger Gregoire

Curious... it's just a pastebin.

There's no equation to yield herd immunity. The model runs until there are no infected people left; i.e., eradication. In all of the scenarios in the video, there are 20 vulnerable people, and initially 5 infected. The board is very dense; population is 500 on an 80x25 board, so 25% of the area is filled with people. With 0% initially immune (in effect vaccinated), all 20 die. Same with 2% and 50%. So with these scenarios all 20 deaths at eradication is the baseline. The protective effect can be measured by how many vulnerable people are left alive at eradication. At 80% initial vaccination, that's 4 people. At 95%, it's 12. Note that vaccination skips vulnerable people, so the protective effect is entirely due to the vulnerable just not getting sick.

The amount of the virus within a given environment, divided by the total number of people within that environment dictate the initial odds of a person getting infected. — Roger Gregoire

That doesn't make sense. Let's take scenario A: There are n viruses in an environment, one person in the environment, and there's a 90% chance this person gets infected. Now consider scenario B, we put two people in that environment. Are you saying there's now a 45% chance each get infected? If so, let's take scenario C: There are 2*n viruses in the environment, and one person in the environment. Probability cannot exceed 1; maybe we'll say there's 99% chance this person gets infected. But now, finally, consider scenario D: There are 2*n viruses in the environment, and two people in the environment. So, would there be a 47.5% chance each gets infected?

But now you have A versus D; in both cases, there's the same number of viruses per person (n/1 vs 2*n/2), but the odds per person getting sick change (90% to 47.5%). Are you really going by that?

Imagine 100 people are inside a room with 10 mosquitos flying about. Further imagine that 50 of these people are healthy (a mosquito bite does not bother them) and 50 people are vulnerable, whereas they would have a severe reaction and possibly die if bitten by a mosquito. So the initial odds of a vulnerable person getting bit by a mosquito is 10% — Roger Gregoire

Hmmm... I have to assume the parenthetical is a typo:

(100 10 mosquitos, 10 100 people = 10% chance of anyone[each?] getting bit). — Roger Gregoire

...probability doesn't work that way; 10 mosquitos, 100 people no more means 10% chance of getting bit than 200 mosquitos, 100 people means 200% chance of getting bit.

INPITZOTL'S THEORY: If we keep healthy people from getting infected then we will reach herd immunity and protect and save the vulnerable people. — Roger Gregoire

So let's start with the biggest problem... that's not my theory. More in a bit.

Okay, let's try InPitzotl's theory -- let's put the 50 healthy people in mosquito proof gunny sacks, to prevent them from getting bit. Okay so now what are the odds of the vulnerable people getting bit? ...it has doubled!, ...it is now 20%! (10 mosquitos, and 50 exposed people, = 20% chance of getting bit). — Roger Gregoire

The next problem is that the objection to the not-my-theory is broken. Probability doesn't work as you describe. The next problem is that your scenario is non-analogous. Mosquitos hunt; viruses do not. There are likely a lot more viruses than there are people. And mosquitos can actually bite more than once; a virus cannot infect more than one person.

Now for what my theory really is... it's that the best way to protect vulnerable people, is to just do exactly that. Protect the vulnerable people. So let's take inventory. We have 100 people. 50 are healthy. 50 are vulnerable. We have 50 mosquito nets. People in mosquito nets don't get bit. But Roger is too distracted by his own conception of herd immunity, which demands nobody is covered; that he forgets that the primary goal is to protect lives. Were Roger not busy distracting himself, might it occur to him to put the mosquito nets on the vulnerable people?

BUSTED: Roger, by confusing the goal "herd immunity" with the goal "saving vulnerable lives", killed 10% more vulnerable people than he could have saved.

Incidentally, I think you're missing the part where you mention that maybe 10 of these healthy people, if bit, have a fair likelihood of developing this odd condition where the mosquitos reproduce in their body and come out of their mouth and nose in scores. Those people I certainly don't want getting bit; you know, for the sake of the vulnerable people. In fact, I'd much rather not have such ticking time bombs be in the room in the first place, if possible. You think 10 mosquitos in a room is bad? Try 60 to 100. OTOH, if there's a magic cookie that you can give to these 10 healthy people that prevents them from having this condition, sign me up!

We need to immediately "un-socially distance" healthy people! If we let healthy people (including those who were previously infected and those who were recently vaccinated) expose themselves and get infected then we will reach herd immunity and protect and save the vulnerable people. — Roger Gregoire

You speak as if social distancing prevents healthy people from getting infected. Do you believe that's a real thing? If so, why aren't you considering social distancing for the vulnerable? This is the mosquito net problem all over again.

General question: with respect to the impact of social distancing and the lockdown, has anyone mentioned what the plan will be when the numbers of people suffering from Agoraphobia suddenly go through the roof? We are being conditioned to fear our neighbour, stay home and indoors to stay safe, and to constantly wear a mask when not in our homes. There can be little doubt that this will occur. NO mention of this by any government I have heard.

THE CORRECTED CALCULATIONS:

The amount of the virus within a given environment, divided by the total number of people within that environment dictate the initial odds of a person getting infected. And then, the ratio of healthy people to total people within that same environment, multiplied by the initial odds, yields the protective effect to the vulnerable people. This is the correct equation for determining the protective effects of herd immunity, and not the "distance" from healthy people to vulnerable people, nor the "distance" that the virus has to travel.

Or if we want to know the infection rate to vulnerable people then: Virus/Total People (within a given environment) * Vulnerable People/Total People (within the same environment) = % of infection to vulnerable people.

Herd immunity is achieved by adding healthy people to a given contaminated environment with vulnerable people so as to reduce the "density" of the virus exposure to the individual vulnerable person. To help illustrate my point:

Imagine 100 people are inside a room with 10 mosquitos flying about. Further imagine that 50 of these people are healthy (a mosquito bite does not bother them) and 50 people are vulnerable, whereas they would have a severe reaction and die if bitten by a mosquito. So the odds of a vulnerable person dying from a mosquito bite is 5% (10 mosquitos / 100 total people) = 10%, and (50 vulnerable people / 100 total people) = 50%, and so 10% * 50% = 5%, and so 5% * 50 vulnerable people = 2.5 dead people.

ISAAC'S THEORY: If we remove the healthy people from the environment, then we will reach herd immunity and protect and save the vulnerable people.

Okay, let's try Isaac's theory -- let's remove the 50 healthy people from the room. So the odds of a vulnerable person dying from a mosquito bite is 20%. (10 mosquitos / 50 total people) = 20%, and (50 vulnerable people / 50 total people) = 100%, and so 20% * 100% = 20%, and so 20% * 50 vulnerable people = 10 dead people.

BUSTED: Isaac KILLS 4 times more people.

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

INPITZOTL'S THEORY: If we keep healthy people from getting infected then we will reach herd immunity and protect and save the vulnerable people.

Okay, let's try InPitzotl's theory -- let's put the 50 healthy people in mosquito proof gunny sacks, to prevent them from getting bit. So the odds of a vulnerable person dying from a mosquito bite is 20%. (10 mosquitos / 50 total exposed people) = 20%, and (50 vulnerable people / 50 total exposed people) = 100%, and so 20% * 100% = 20%, and so 20% * 50 vulnerable people = 10 dead people.

BUSTED: InPitzotl KILLS 4 times more people.

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

ROGER'S THEORY #1: If we add more healthy people (including those who were previously infected and those who were recently vaccinated) to contaminated environments then we will reach herd immunity and protect and save the vulnerable people.

Okay, let's try Roger's theory #1 -- let's add 100 more healthy people into the room. So the odds of a vulnerable person dying from a mosquito bite is 1.25%. (10 mosquitos / 200 total people) = 5%, and (50 vulnerable people / 200 total people) = 25%, and so 5% * 25% = 1.25%, and so 1.25% * 50 vulnerable people = 0.6 dead people.

SUCCESS: Roger #1 SAVES 4 times more people.

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

ROGER'S THEORY #2: We need to immediately "un-socially distance" healthy people! If we let healthy people (including those who were previously infected and those who were recently vaccinated) expose themselves and get infected then we will reach herd immunity and protect and save the vulnerable people.

Okay, let's try Roger's theory #2 -- let's have the 50 healthy people strip down naked to expose 10 times more surface area to be bitten by the mosquitos, and then put the excess clothing around the vulnerable people to give them an extra layer of protection. So the odds of a vulnerable person dying from a mosquito bite is ~0%. (10 mosquitos / 100 total people) = 10%, and (0 vulnerable people / 50 total exposed people) = 0%, and so 10% * 0% = ~0%, and so 0% * 50 vulnerable people = 0.0 dead people.

SUCCESS: Roger #2 SAVES virtually ALL the vulnerable people.

The amount of the virus within a given environment, divided by the total number of people within that environment dictate the initial odds of a person getting infected. — Roger Gregoire

That doesn't make sense. Let's take scenario A: There are n viruses in an environment, one person in the environment, and there's a 90% chance this person gets infected. Now consider scenario B, we put two people in that environment. Are you saying there's now a 45% chance each get infected? — InPitzotl

No. And again, the initial odds of infection are n viruses/n people in a given environment. (...if you wish to multiply this value by a 90% probability factor, then it does not matter as it is moot to the overall %).

Consider the following scenario:

Imagine 100 people are inside a room with 10 airborne virus. Further imagine that 50 of these people are healthy (asymptomatic; being infected by the virus does not bother them) and 50 people are vulnerable, whereas a virus infection would kill them. So the odds of a vulnerable person dying from the virus in this situation is 5%. (10 virus / 100 total people) = 10%, and (50 vulnerable people / 100 total people) = 50%, and so 10% * 50% = 5%, and so 5% * 50 vulnerable people = 2.5 dead people.

The amount of the virus within a given environment, divided by the total number of people within that environment dictate the initial odds of a person getting infected. — Roger Gregoire

So, P₀=N_v/N_p, where P₀ is initial probability, N_v is number of viruses, N_p number of people.

And then, the ratio of healthy people to total people within that same environment, multiplied by the initial odds, yields the protective effect to the vulnerable people.

So, E=P₀*(N_h/N_p), where E is the protective effect, and N_h the number of healthy people.

This is the correct equation for determining the protective effects of herd immunity, and not the "distance" from healthy people to vulnerable people, nor the "distance" that the virus has to travel.

Probability still doesn't work that way I'm afraid. If there are 1000 viruses in the room, and 2 people, 1 of which is healthy, you have:
P₀=500=50000%
E=50000%*(1/2)=25000%

And probabilities cannot be higher than 100%. Could this absurdity be why you curiously have less mosquitos than people in your scenario?

Let's change your numbers, and preserve your calculations, to show you how absurd this is:

Roger's math: "Imagine 10 people are inside a room with 100 mosquitos flying about. Further imagine that 5 of these people are healthy (a mosquito bite does not bother them) and 5 people are vulnerable, whereas they would have a severe reaction and die if bitten by a mosquito. So the odds of a vulnerable person dying from a mosquito bite is 1000% (100 mosquitos / 10 total people) = 1000%, and (5 vulnerable people / 10 total people) = 50%, and so 1000% * 50% = 500%, and so 500% * 5 vulnerable people = 25 dead people."

...and more vulnerable people died than you initially had.

No. The initial odds of infection are n viruses/n people in a given environment. — Roger Gregoire

...so, the 1000% chance of getting bit is real?

Imagine 100 people are inside a room with 10 airborne virus. — Roger Gregoire

This is the same thing you just said in the other post, except you say virus instead of mosquito. Okay, so let's get more absurd.

Roger's math: Imagine 10 people in the room, 5 healthy, with 1000 airborne viruses. Now we get the odds of a vulnerable person dying as (1000 virus / 10 people)*(5 vulnerable/10 people) = 10000%*50% = 5000%. With 5 vulnerable people, we get 5000%*5=250 dead.

...so now, herd immunity killed 25 times more people than there are in the room.

INPITZOTL'S THEORY: If we keep healthy people from getting infected then we will reach herd immunity and protect and save the vulnerable people. — Roger Gregoire

Still not my theory.

let's put the 50 healthy people in mosquito proof [mosquito nets], to prevent them from getting bit. — Roger Gregoire

...and you still have the mosquito net problem. Because you cannot fathom putting those 50 nets on the 50 vulnerable people, saving everyone, you import 100 people into the room.

Incidentally, I think you're missing the part where you mention that maybe 10 of these healthy people, if bit, have a fair likelihood of developing this odd condition where the mosquitos reproduce in their body and come out of their mouth and nose in scores. — InPitzotl

This is more bad science. Logically, healthy immune people destroy more of the virus than they create. If this were not so, then herd immunity would not only be theoretically impossible, but also logically impossible.

If everyone, including healthy immune people only "contributed" virus back into the environment (and not "removed" virus from the environment), then healthy people would have no functional role in herd immunity. There would be no such thing as herd immunity.

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

You speak as if social distancing prevents healthy people from getting infected. — InPitzotl

Yes, of course. Preventing (or social distancing) healthy people from away from contaminated environments allows the contaminated environment to only become more contaminated.

Remember: Healthy immune people are the "removers" (attacker/killers) of the virus from the environment. Whereas vulnerable people are the "contributers" (replicaters/shedders) of virus back into the environment.

In other words, the immune system of healthy people "attack and kill" the virus, where the immune system of vulnerable people are less responsive, allowing unabated viral replications (which manifest into physical symptoms) and shed back into the environment.

Keeping healthy people away from contaminated environments allows these contaminated environments to only become more contaminated. If you keep the vacuum cleaner away from the rug, the rug can only get dirtier, ...not cleaner.

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

If so, why aren't you considering social distancing for the vulnerable? — InPitzot

Huh? Vulnerable people need to social distance much more than they currently are. We need to minimize the contamination in the environment. And the healthy need to be set free to clean up the contamination. Right now the contamination is increasing at a faster rate than it is being removed (because we are social distancing our healthy people!). Soon (if not already here) the increase will be greater than our ability to decrease it (aka the-point-of-no-return).

Huh? Vulnerable people need to social distance much more than they currently are. We need to minimize the contamination in the environment. — Roger Gregoire

This conflicts with putting healthy people in the same room as vulnerable people. There's a room with 5 healthy people and 5 vulnerable people in it. Are you going to add 10 healthy people or remove 5 vulnerable people?

In fact, you were calculating putting the 5 healthy people in mosquito nets, calling that my idea, and calculating that as worse. That calculation is identical to removing those 5 healthy people from the room. There's an asymmetry here... you want to infect healthy people? Put them together, so they can get infected; implication being if you leave them apart, they can't get infected. Want to protect vulnerable people? Well, by all means, don't keep them apart... they could get infected. Why are the rules different for healthy people than they are for vulnerable people?

So, P0=Nv/Np, where P0 is initial probability, Nv is number of viruses, Np number of people.

And then, the ratio of healthy people to total people within that same environment, multiplied by the initial odds, yields the protective effect to the vulnerable people.

So, E=P0/Nh, where E is the protective effect, and Nh the number of healthy people.

Probability still doesn't work that way I'm afraid. If there are 1000 viruses in the room, and 2 people, 1 of which is healthy, you have:

P0=500=50000%
E=50000%*(1/2)=25000% — InPitzotl

E is just the protective effect, it doesn't tell you how many (or what %) of people are saved, or have died.
If you want to know how many dead (assuming all infected people die) in this example, then use this equation:

P0=Nv/Np, where P0 is initial probability, Nv is number of viruses, Np number of people.
D=P0 * (Ns / Np) * Ns where D is the number of dead people, and Ns the number of vulnerable people.

E is just the protective effect, it doesn't tell you how many (or what %) of people are saved, or have died. — Roger Gregoire

I didn't say it did. But you mentioned this effect. Incidentally, E winds up just being N_v/N_h.

P0=Nv/Np, where P0 is initial probability, Nv is number of viruses, Np number of people. — Roger Gregoire

But P₀ is still N_v/N_p. So if you have 5000 viruses in a room and 50 vulnerable people, P₀=100=10000%.

Look, let me help. Let's go back to the 10 mosquitos, 100 people in a room. But let's actually add spoken assumptions... each mosquito bites exactly one person at random. Mosquito 1 could bite any of those 100 people. Mosquito 2 could also bite any of those 100 people, but this includes the possibility that Mosquito 2 bit the same person Mosquito 1 bit. So there are 100^10 different ways those 10 mosquitos could bite those 100 people. If Frank is vulnerable, for Frank not to get bit, none of the 10 mosquitos can bit him. There are 99 ways the first mosquito can not bite Frank; 99 ways the second cannot, and so on. So there are 99^10 different ways mosquitos could bite people such that they don't bite Frank. Thus, the probability Frank is not bit is (99^10)/(100^10). So there's about a 90.44% chance Frank is not bit; which means there's a 9.56% chance he gets bit. Now if you flip this, with 100 mosquitos and 10 people, you can do something similar. There's a (9^100)/(10^100) chance any one person doesn't get bit here. So the probability Frank doesn't get bit is about 0.0027%; the probability that he gets bit is 99.997%.

Oops, I've got "Nv" representing two different things. Corrected equation:

P0=Nv/Np, where P0 is initial probability, Nv is number of viruses, Np number of people.
D=P0 * (Ns / Np) * Ns where D is the number of dead people, and Ns the number of vulnerable people.

P0=Nv/Np, where P0 is initial probability, Nv is number of viruses, Np number of people. — Roger Gregoire

You still get the same absurdities; P₀>1 (i.e., >100%) when N_v>N_p, and >1 is outside the range of a probability.

Look, let me help. Let's go back to the 10 mosquitos, 100 people in a room. But let's actually add spoken assumptions... each mosquito bites exactly one person at random. Mosquito 1 could bite any of those 100 people. Mosquito 2 could also bite any of those 100 people, but this includes the possibility that Mosquito 2 bit the same person Mosquito 1 bit. So there are 100^10 different ways those 10 mosquitos could bite those 100 people. If Frank is vulnerable, for Frank not to get bit, none of the 10 mosquitos can bite him. There are 99 ways the first mosquito can not bite Frank; 99 ways the second can not bite him, and so on. So there are 99^10 different ways the mosquitos could bite people such that they don't bite Frank. Thus, the probability Frank is not bit is (99^10)/(100^10). So there's about a 90.44% chance Frank is not bit; which means there's a 9.56% chance he gets bit. Now if you flip this, with 100 mosquitos and 10 people, you can do something similar. There's a (9^100)/(10^100) chance any one person doesn't get bit here. So the probability Frank doesn't get bit is about 0.0027%; the probability that he gets bit is 99.997%.

There's a room with 5 healthy people and 5 vulnerable people in it. Are you going to add 10 healthy people or remove 5 vulnerable people? — InPitzotl

1. If we add healthy people, then less vulnerable people die.
2. If we remove (quarantine) vulnerable people, then less vulnerable people die.
3. If we do both, then even less vulnerable people die.

I vote we do BOTH to maximize the saving of vulnerable people.

Oops, I've got "Nv" representing two different things. Corrected equation: — Roger Gregoire

Really? That's what you're correcting? Not the manifestly false claim that healthy people remove viruses from the environment faster than socially distanced unhealthy ones, for which you've provided absolutely zero evidential support and on which your entire thesis is based?

1. If we add healthy people, then less vulnerable people die.
2. If we remove (quarantine) vulnerable people, then less vulnerable people die.
3. If we do both, then even less vulnerable people die.
I vote we do BOTH to maximize the saving of vulnerable people. — Roger Gregoire

This is muddled up and inconsistent. You calculated what you called my theory, which is the same principle by your equations as isolation; you computed that more people die when healthy people are put in mosquito nets than if we had the healthy people in the room. You may as well take those people out, but then you're saying that more people die by becoming infected when you isolate than when you don't. But again, you're saying that we need to stop isolating healthy people so that they become infected. Surely if isolating vulnerable people gets them bit more, isolating healthy people would get them bit more. Might I suggest that you're making some assumptions that are critical to your model, and just need to figure out what they are?

As for probability, you need to fix that if you want to use it. If you don't know how to do probability right, don't try it. But don't worry too much about that; I'll help you muddle through that. Just start by developing your model assumptions.

Really? That's what you're correcting? Not the manifestly false claim that healthy people remove viruses from the environment faster than socially distanced unhealthy ones, for which you've provided absolutely zero evidential support and on which your entire thesis is based? — Isaac

Isaac, look at the math and the logic. Please point out the specific error that you see.

Again, if healthy immune people didn't remove more of the virus than they contribute, then herd immunity would be logically and theoretically impossible.

Again, if healthy immune people didn't remove more of the virus than they contribute, then herd immunity would be logically and theoretically impossible. — Roger Gregoire

The computer program I wrote (and linked to earlier) proves this wrong.

1. If we add healthy people, then less vulnerable people die.
2. If we remove (quarantine) vulnerable people, then less vulnerable people die.
3. If we do both, then even less vulnerable people die. — Roger Gregoire

This is muddled up and inconsistent. ...you computed that more people die when healthy people are put in mosquito nets than if we had the healthy people in the room. — InPitzotl

Correct. If we hide (socially distance) healthy people in mosquito proof gunny sacks then there will be more vulnerable deaths, (as per the equations).

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

You may as well take those people out, but then you're saying that more people die by becoming infected when you isolate than when you don't. — InPitzotl

Yes, when you isolate or remove healthy people, then more vulnerable people die.

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

But again, you're saying that we need to stop isolating healthy people so that they become infected. — InPitzotl

Correct. The more healthy people in a contaminated environment, the more protection (less deaths) to the vulnerable. Every infection to a healthy person (whose immune system kills said infection) means less infection (and deaths) to vulnerable people.

Again, if healthy immune people didn't remove more of the virus than they contribute, then herd immunity would be logically and theoretically impossible. — Roger Gregoire

The computer program I wrote proves this wrong. — InPitzotl

Then there would be no such thing as "herd immunity"!

I suspect it more likely that your program is not using the true volumetric ("density") calculations, or contains some false assumptions.

I suspect it more likely that your program is not using the true volumetric ("density") calculations, or contains some false assumptions. — Roger Gregoire

Not in any way that helps your assertion that it's logically impossible. In the model implemented by the program, everyone in an infected environment always gets infected. And immune people never clean the environment. And still, there's a protective effect.

And by the way, you're employing circular reasoning. You're claiming that IF your premises were not true, THEN herd immunity is impossible. But you're questioning the program's validity BECAUSE it doesn't use your premises.

And immune people never clean the environment. — InPitzotl

...any virus that infects an immune person is a dead virus, ...meaning one less virus in the environment, ...meaning that immune people remove more virus than they create, ...meaning immune people "clean" the environment.

So here is at least one error in your programming.

any virus that infects an immune person — Roger Gregoire

...irrelevant. My model employs an infection model that infects more people than you're describing, and still demonstrates a protective effect. The very thing you are arguing is that if it weren't for your described mechanism, herd immunity would be logically impossible.

But you are not accounting for the protective effect of this immune person (removing more of the virus than he creates).

Also, if I understand your program/model correctly, the "protective effect" shown on your program is a function of "removing" (not "adding") healthy people from the environment (or preventing them from getting infected). Not only is this contrary to science, but mathematically this kills 4 times many more people.

INPITZOTL'S PROGRAM: If we keep healthy people from getting infected then we will reach herd immunity and protect and save the vulnerable people.

Okay, let's run InPitzotl's program -- let's put the 50 healthy people in mosquito proof gunny sacks, to prevent them from getting bit. So now the odds of a vulnerable person dying from a mosquito bite is 20% (versus 5%). (10 mosquitos / 50 total exposed people) = 20%, and (50 vulnerable people / 50 total exposed people) = 100%, and so 20% * 100% = 20%, and so 20% * 50 vulnerable people = 10 dead people (versus 2.5).

BUSTED: InPitzotl KILLS 4 times more people.

I suspect there are error(s) and/or false assumptions in your program, as the math clearly shows the deadly consequence of removing/isolating healthy people from a given environment.

As can be seen, logically and mathematically, we are killing many, many more people by implementing social distancing on our healthy population.

If we don't wake up soon, and stop adhering to bad science, it will be too late. We will be outnumbered by the virus, and they will win the battle of natural selection (survival of the fittest).

Note: vaccines are totally useless, if we continue to socially distance our vaccinated population.

Our only real hope, is if enough healthy people disobey current social distancing mandates. They take off their masks and return to normal full socialization. Otherwise, the party's over. Humans will become extinct within 5-10 years on this planet.

Our so called "medical experts" seemingly are too proudful to admit they screwed up. Oh well, that's life I guess.

INPITZOTL'S PROGRAM: If we keep healthy people from getting infected then we will reach herd immunity and protect and save the vulnerable people. — Roger Gregoire

Funny, I don't recall coding that. What line of code are you looking at?

I suspect you have an error(s) and/or false assumptions in your program — Roger Gregoire

I suspect you haven't a clue what you're talking about. The program's still there on pastebin. I could see it when using a text-only web browser from April, 2008.

INPITZOTL'S PROGRAM: If we keep healthy people from getting infected then we will reach herd immunity and protect and save the vulnerable people. — Roger Gregoire

Funny, I don't recall coding that. What line of code are you looking at? — InPitzotl

You did say this, ...right? --- "the only role healthy people play in herd immunity is by not getting infected". So then how do "healthy people not getting infected" create herd immunity in your program/model???

Isaac, look at the math and the logic. — Roger Gregoire

It's not a matter of math and logic. God! I wish people would give up with this messianic delusion that they can sit in their fucking armchairs and work out how the world is using math and logic.

Just what bizarre delusion makes you think that you can use math and logic to work out the rate at which the human immune system typically kills virus particles, the rate at which covid-19 typically replicates, the rate at which it is inactivated outside of its host, and the shedding rate of healthy and unhealthy hosts?

Did you read the paper I cited, which details some of these figures?

Logic always trumps science. If something is logically impossible then all the science in the world cannot make the impossible, somehow possible. Closing your eyes to logic (and math) in favor of science is the problem.

Bad science = science that disregards logic.

I'll say it again -- if healthy immune people did not "remove" more of the virus from the environment than they "add", then 'herd immunity' would be logically impossible. There would be no such thing as 'herd immunity'. In other words, if all people were only "adders" (contributors) of the virus, and none were "removers" of the virus, then healthy people could never give a 'protective effect', but instead, only a 'deadly effect'.

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

Also, I don't know if you caught this statement in the article that you linked --- "Our study shows that isolation practices should be commenced with the start of first symptoms, which can include mild and atypical symptoms, preceding typical symptoms of COVID-19 such as cough and fever." --- ...implying that social distancing is not necessary until the onset of symptoms. ...which further implies that those with healthy immune systems that don't have symptoms (because their immune system kills the virus!) don't necessarily need to practice social distancing.

You did say this, ...right? --- "the only role healthy people play in herd immunity is by not getting infected" -- InPitzotl — Roger Gregoire

Oh, is that where you're getting this from? Yes, I said that.

So then how do "healthy people not getting infected" create herd immunity in your program?

You're confused. Reread that statement. This is a description of what herd immunity is, not a strategy for attaining it. If you watch the videos, you'll see uninfected people marked by a U, and there are "waves" of infections, marked by S, that flow over them, because they are within 5 units of each other. That's true for the 0%, 2%, and 50% scenarios, and that wave is sufficient to cover all of the vulnerable people, effectively killing them. But, once you reach 80%, there are 4 lucky people that are not within 5 units of someone who could get sick (i.e., S). There are two kinds of people in this model that can not get sick: (1) a dead vulnerable guy, (2) a healthy immune guy. A healthy person that can get sick just spreads the disease. A healthy person that cannot get sick, just can't spread the disease. So even if he's within 5 squares of you, he's not going to give you an infection. It's not that he's cleaning it up (there's no cleanups in this model), it's just that he's not getting sick.

The difference between the 50% scenario and the 80% that saves those 4 lives is that healthy people around them did not get sick. The difference between the 50% and the 95% scenario that saved those 12 lives is that nobody around those 12 people got sick.

So then how do "healthy people not getting infected" create herd immunity in your program? — Roger Gregoire

You're confused. Reread that statement. This is a description of what herd immunity is, not a strategy for attaining it. — InPitzotl

Okay, so let me try asking a different way. How does healthy people factor into protecting vulnerable people in your model?

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

A healthy person that cannot get sick, just can't spread the disease. So even if he's within 5 squares of you, he's not going to give you an infection. It's not that he's cleaning it up (there's no cleanups in this model), it's just that he's not getting sick. — InPitzotl

You do realize that healthy people (those that can't get sick, or previously infected, or recently vaccinated) are necessary to achieve herd immunity, right?

So again, how do these "necessary" people factor in achieving herd immunity in your program/model? Can you show the math equation (similar to what I did earlier) that accounts for these healthy people in your program/model?