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):Seriously? ...you are playing games, ...you know very well what P2 I am referring too. — Roger Gregoire
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
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?P1. Healthy immune people not getting infected.
P2. (...missing)
C1. Therefore, we get herd immunity; protection for our vulnerable people — Roger Gregoire
Defined flawed. Do you mean by flawed anything different than I mean here?:The starting condition (inputs) of your model is flawed, which results in unreliable results. — Roger Gregoire
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).For discussion purposes only, I'll oversimplify. — InPitzotl
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.First error. People don't get infected from other people. They get infected by being in(<-A) a contaminated environment.(<-B) — Roger Gregoire
Curious... it's just a pastebin.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
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?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
Hmmm... I have to assume the parenthetical is a typo: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
...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.(10010 mosquitos,10100 people = 10% chance ofanyone[each?] getting bit). — Roger Gregoire
So let's start with the biggest problem... that's not my theory. More in a 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
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.Okay, let's tryInPitzotl'stheory -- 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
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.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
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
So, P0=Nv/Np, where P0 is initial probability, Nv is number of viruses, Np number of 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, E=P0*(Nh/Np), where E is the protective effect, and Nh the number of healthy 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.
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: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.
...so, the 1000% chance of getting bit is real?No. The initial odds of infection are n viruses/n people in a given environment. — 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.Imagine 100 people are inside a room with 10 airborne virus. — Roger Gregoire
Still not my theory.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
...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.let's put the 50 healthy people in mosquito proof [mosquito nets], to prevent them from getting bit. — Roger Gregoire
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
If so, why aren't you considering social distancing for the vulnerable? — InPitzot
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?Huh? Vulnerable people need to social distance much more than they currently are. We need to minimize the contamination in the environment. — Roger Gregoire
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
I didn't say it did. But you mentioned this effect. Incidentally, E winds up just being Nv/Nh.E is just the protective effect, it doesn't tell you how many (or what %) of people are saved, or have died. — Roger Gregoire
But P0 is still Nv/Np. So if you have 5000 viruses in a room and 50 vulnerable people, P0=100=10000%.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 Nv>Np, and >1 is outside the range of a probability.P0=Nv/Np, where P0 is initial probability, Nv is number of viruses, Np number of people. — Roger Gregoire
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
Oops, I've got "Nv" representing two different things. Corrected equation: — 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?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
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
The computer program I wrote (and linked to earlier) proves this wrong.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
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
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
But again, you're saying that we need to stop isolating healthy people so that they become infected. — InPitzotl
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
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.I suspect it more likely that your program is not using the true volumetric ("density") calculations, or contains some false assumptions. — Roger Gregoire
And immune people never clean the environment. — InPitzotl
...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.any virus that infects an immune person — Roger Gregoire
Funny, I don't recall coding that. What line of code are you looking at?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
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.I suspect you have an error(s) and/or false assumptions in your program — Roger Gregoire
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
Isaac, look at the math and the logic. — Roger Gregoire
Oh, is that where you're getting this from? Yes, I said that.You did say this, ...right? --- "the only role healthy people play in herd immunity is by not getting infected" -- InPitzotl — Roger Gregoire
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.So then how do "healthy people not getting infected" create herd immunity in your program?
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
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
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.