I don't know why this is so confusing to you. By not getting sick.Okay, so let me try asking a different way. How does healthy people factor into protecting vulnerable people in your model? — Roger Gregoire
They don't get sick.So how do these people factor in achieving herd immunity in your program/model? — Roger Gregoire
Not really, because the question makes no sense. Equations in math denote two quantities compared to an operator, but the model is an evolving thing with multiple states; it evolves those states until there are no more infections. Healthy people are accounted for in this model by code; not "a" math equation. I could rephrase the model in mathematical terms, but I'm not sure how much it'd help you.Can you show the math equation (similar to what I did) to see to how you account for these healthy people? — Roger Gregoire
enum State { Uninfected, Infected, Immune, Dead }; struct Person { bool vulnerable; State state; unsigned x, y; vector<Person*> neighbors; }; void evolve() { set<Person*> died; set<Person*> immunized; set<Person*> infected; for (auto& p : people) { if (p.state == Infected) { if (p.vulnerable) { died.insert(&p); } else { immunized.insert(&p); } for (auto &neighbor : p.neighbors) if (neighbor->state==Uninfected) { infected.insert(neighbor); } } } for (auto &p : died) p->state = Dead; for (auto &p : immunized) p->state = Immune; for (auto &p : infected) p->state = Infected; }
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. — InPitzotl
our well intentioned public officials. — Roger Gregoire
...our well intentioned public officials. — Roger Gregoire
Are they though? I mean, really? Am I still considered to be well intentioned if I make a mistake and then cling to that mistake, insisting on repeating it over and over again, rather than admit that it was a shit call in the first place? That sound like a gambling addiction...."it will work this time and then I will win it all back and more....Hey lend me more money, because THIS time it is really gonna happen..."
Ardent denial is difficult to confuse with well intention. — Book273
Depends on what you mean by necessary. The healthy people are necessary for herd immunity, but that's just a qualification of a term. They are not necessary to have a protective effect... if you remove the healthy people, your vulnerable people are just too distant from each other. That's just "social distancing". But there's no mechanical difference between the two, just a nominal difference.But yet, according to your program, and your belief, healthy people are not really "necessary". They just need to "stay out of the way and not get infected", right? — Roger Gregoire
The protective effect is holistic; it's similar to a phase shift. To understand what it is exactly as it applies to this model, you just need to understand what exactly happens in the model. Consider the case where the infection radius is set to 5, with one person infected. Then in one step, a person currently infected will lead to an infection of anyone within 5 units. For all such persons, in two steps, a person not yet infected will get infected if they are within 5 units of any of those. This infection will spread to any area of the map where there exists a chain of people P1, P2, ..., Pn, such that every two consecutive people in this chain is within 5 units of each other, P1 is within 5 units of the initially infected person, and Pn within 5 units of that location. Whereas I called this 5 unit area the "infection range", we can describe all areas of the map that this person can eventually contaminate as the "extended infection range". Initially, the extended infection range of sick people extends to the entire map. Once you increase the number of people who are immune, you decrease the density of people who can get sick, and at some point the union of the extended infection range of all sick people becomes less than the entire map. At that point, there are areas of the map where people who are not infected may inhabit that will never lead to an infection. The survivors are simply outside of the extended range of the initial sick people.Where exactly is the the protective effect if everyone always gets infected? — Book273
But yet, according to your program, and your belief, healthy people are not really "necessary". They just need to "stay out of the way and not get infected", right? — Roger Gregoire
They [healthy people] are not necessary to have a protective effect. — InPitzotl
Also, you're failing to grasp the significance of what "according to [my] program" actually means. Programs aren't agents. My program isn't opining anything; it's implementing something. — InPitzotl
Says the guy who can't compute a probability.Not only does this contradict basic math and logic — Roger Gregoire
This is a contradiction. Might I remind you, you are against healthy people social distancing because you want them to get infected. That implies you don't think they'll get infected if they do. Why not?Without healthy people mixing in with vulnerable people there can be no protective effect whatsoever. — Roger Gregoire
You're confused. The program is based on my model. My prediction, given before I wrote the program, is that there would be such an effect in the model. Writing the program is just implementing the model. Running the program confirms the prediction. To wit, if my prediction were wrong, then the running program should show no protective effect. But it did.If so, then it is based on your view; your opinion; your interpretation of how herd immunity works. — Roger Gregoire
But you advanced the argument from incredulity that your opinion is justified because if your opinion were false, then herd immunity would be impossible. My program shows this argument is wrong.It is an expression of your opinion, ...which, in my opinion, doesn't accurately match how herd immunity or how the protective effect truly works. — Roger Gregoire
Without healthy people mixing in with vulnerable people there can be no protective effect whatsoever. — Roger Gregoire
This is a contradiction. — InPitzotl
Might I remind you, you are against healthy people social distancing because you want them to get infected. — InPitzotl
That implies you don't think they'll get infected if they do. — InPitzotl
That sounds impressive, but I'm afraid I'm not that gullible. "Virtually all medical experts, scientists, and health agencies" is quite a weasel worded reference. I cited the wikipedia article though, which gives an explanation that is pretty much the same as mine. Encyclopedic references are good first starts to explain what the current consensus is, especially popular ones about popular subjects.It's not just me saying this, but virtually all medical experts, scientists, and health agencies (e.g. CDC, etc) also say this. Why you believe otherwise, is baffling. — Roger Gregoire
Ah, don't you hate it when they do that? Alright, let's do that.Herd immunity: See Community immunity. — CDC Glossary
So... according to the CDC, herd immunity is simply about making the spread of an infectious disease from person to person unlikely due to a sufficient proportion of a population being immune. That sounds like what I'm saying. They also say why the vulnerable are protected, but per their story, it is because "the disease has little opportunity to spread within the community." There's no mention of immune people around you fighting germs. Just diseases that can't spread because there's no opportunity to.Community immunity: A situation in which a sufficient proportion of a population is immune to an infectious disease (through vaccination and/or prior illness) to make its spread from person to person unlikely. Even individuals not vaccinated (such as newborns and those with chronic illnesses) are offered some protection because the disease has little opportunity to spread within the community. Also known as herd immunity. — CDC Glossary
Immune people do not get infected (per this model). Uninfected people do. Or as the CDC phrases it: "immune ... through vaccination and/or prior illness".To the contrary. Remember: nothing happens to healthy immune people when they get infected — Roger Gregoire
TBH I'm not sure I can agree to disagree here. That makes it sound like we're discussing which flavor of ice cream is the best; as if this is just an opinion versus opinion thing.InPitzotl, I think we are at a stand-still. Neither of us are budging from our positions, so I think it is time to say "we agree to disagree". — Roger Gregoire
You make it sound like observing the effects of social distancing has never been done before. Not only have we been doing this since the 19th century, but here's the data I myself crunched from the start of the pandemic:But one last request before we depart. How about we make a deal? — Roger Gregoire
So... according to the CDC, herd immunity is simply about making the spread of an infectious disease from person to person unlikely due to a sufficient proportion of a population being immune. — InPitzotl
That sounds like what I'm saying. — InPitzotl
You make it sound like observing the effects of social distancing has never been done before. Not only have we been doing this since the 19th century... — InPitzotl
But Roger, when I call these scenarios 0%, 2%, 50%, 80%, and 95%, what exactly did you think those percentages were a proportion of?Your theory is just the opposite. Your theory is based on creating an insufficient proportion! — Roger Gregoire
Nope. And I've corrected you on this very recently, so it's your fault you got this wrong, not mine. The healthy immune people I've expressed no opinion about; it is the healthy uninfected that are the problem. Uninfected per this model is what I initially described as state A; those are the ones you are recommending get infected so that they will become immune. Healthy immune people are state C1.You falsely think that if you move all healthy immune people AWAY from vulnerable, that somehow this gives more protection to the vulnerable. — Roger Gregoire
You speak with an urgency, but without a foundation in reality, your urgency should be ignored.To create herd immunity, you need to move healthy people into a vulnerable population, not away from it! — Roger Gregoire
The graph I showed you suggests otherwise. What are you looking at when you say it's not working exactly?If social distancing of our healthy population is such a good thing, then why is it not working? — Roger Gregoire
You're just doomsaying now. You speak with an urgency, but your urgency is unjustified because your model is in question. It's critically important we get this correct, because reality doesn't care what your opinion is.Next year, if we continue this foolishness — Roger Gregoire
Assuming you're talking about the US ("our country"; only us Mercan's naively expect everyone on the net to be in their country), we certainly haven't been doing the thing in the first place. Certain people in certain areas have, such as us in Massachusetts about the time that the graph I just showed you in the last post demonstrated that the practice worked. But social distancing doesn't work if there's still a significant portion of the population not doing it.Isn't that the definition of insanity? ...keep doing the same thing and expect a different result? — Roger Gregoire
...your theory seems to assume that the vast majority of viruses in an environment find themselves inside human bodies in 7 days. I question that assumption.The reason herd immunity works is because it distributes a significant portion of the viral load — Roger Gregoire
...your theory seems to assume that the vast majority of viruses in an environment find themselves inside human bodies in 7 days. I question that assumption. — InPitzotl
Okay, maybe it's worse than that. On what do you base this and your equations on?...an irrelevant red herring. — Roger Gregoire
If Joe and John run across the beach, does Joe get half as much sand in his toes than if he ran across alone? If Joe and John jump into a pool does Joe get half as wet than if he was alone? If Joe and John pick apples from an orchard, does Joe pick half as many as he would if John hadn't helped?it distributes a significant portion of the viral load to the healthy immune (who don't die) — Roger Gregoire
When you say "falsely", are you comparing against actual numbers that you have, or just making this stuff up?If you are trying to falsely represent the virus as grains of sand, or molecules of water relative to two people (Joe and John), then the virus greatly outnumbers the people. Once we are outnumbered, the party is over. — Roger Gregoire
Now (bolded) that's all viruses, not a particular one.Astronomy is a field that is used to dealing with large numbers, but these can be dwarfed when compared with life on the microbial scale. For instance, if all the 1 × 1031 viruses on earth were laid end to end, they would stretch for 100 million light years. Furthermore, there are 100 million times as many bacteria in the oceans (13 × 1028) as there are stars in the known universe. The rate of viral infection in the oceans stands at 1 × 1023 infections per second, and these infections remove 20–40% of all bacterial cells each day. Moving onto dry land, the number of microorganisms in a teaspoon of soil (1 × 109) is the same as the number of humans currently living in Africa. Even more amazingly, dental plaque is so densely packed that a gram will contain approximately 1 × 1011 bacteria, roughly the same number of humans that have ever lived. Not quite so densely packed but impressive all the same, the bacteria present in the average human gut weigh about 1 kilogram, and a human adult will excrete their own weight in faecal bacteria each year. The number of genes contained within this gut flora outnumbers that contained within our own genome 150-fold, and even in our genome, 8% of the DNA is derived from remnants of viral genomes.
Now I'm not arguing that there are 1031 coronoviruses; that would be silly. But you seem to severely misaprehend how tiny and numerous these things are. — InPitzotl
Sounds very passive-aggressive. Facts are what they are; whatever points you imagined I was making before the end is just what you projected. The point is that you actually think the viruses are on the scale of humans. I'd like to know why. But you didn't comment on that... instead, you just continued onto another arbitrary claim. The only comment you made regarding this appreciation of scale was a passive aggressive accusation that I was "almost" being dishonest; you seemed to have completely failed to grasp the proportionality of the entities you're trying to talk about.I'm glad you were honest enough to end with this paragraph and not continue to falsely equate all the viruses in mankind with this one virus that we call covid-19. — Roger Gregoire
No. The vast majority simply don't affect humans. It has nothing to do with herd immunity.Herd immunity has been natures way of protecting mankind from all these viruses throughout history. — Roger Gregoire
Argument from repetition.We are intentionally shielding our healthy population from protecting our vulnerable population. — Roger Gregoire
Then how do you explain these news clippings that 5 minutes of googling dredged up?Never in the history of mankind have we did this, and is why we are losing this battle with covid.
For every piece of the pie that Joe eats, is one less piece that John can eat. — Roger Gregoire
Of course, but that's hardly a gotcha. I ate an egg sandwich this morning. That egg I ate is one less egg you "could have" eaten. But I somehow doubt there's any reasonable way you could have eaten that egg had I not eaten it. If I drink a glass of milk, that's one less glass of milk that you could drink. But that doesn't mean there's any less milk in the container in your fridge. If a raindrop lands on me, that's one less raindrop that could land on you. But that doesn't mean if we both walk into the rain we get half as wet.InPitzotl, can you grasp this concept? Yes or No? — Roger Gregoire
For every piece of the pie that Joe eats, is one less piece that John can eat. InPitzotl, can you grasp this concept? Yes or No? — Roger Gregoire
You seem to be suggesting by an argument from common sense an absurdity. I could argue that there's virtually no milk in my fridge, because thousands of people drink milk, depriving me of milk, by the logic of this argument. It's kind of ridiculous. Do you grasp how ridiculous this is? — InPitzotl
Nope. It's a pretty direct interpretation of your words.Firstly, you seem to be fabricating a delusional interpretation of my words. — Roger Gregoire
Of course it could be true that we need to divide. But you just ruled out what would make that appropriate. Let's be explicit about what you ruled out:And secondly, this is not necessarily ridiculous — Roger Gregoire
...your theory seems to assume that the vast majority of viruses in an environment find themselves inside human bodies in 7 days. I question that assumption. — InPitzotl
You accused me of advancing an irrelevant red herring here. I dispute that. But if this were an irrelevant red herring, it shouldn't affect things. So let's start with the presumption that the vast majority of available resources for consumption is not consumed....an irrelevant red herring. — Roger Gregoire
But there's only a milk shortage if you consume the vast majority of milk in the area.And secondly, this is not necessarily ridiculous (i.e. thousands of people drinking milk could cause a milk shortage, thereby resulting in no milk in your fridge). — Roger Gregoire
But it's actually your conditions that are irrelevant. If Joe and John don't consume the vast majority of pies in the kitchen, division is inappropriate. Same environment isn't really relevant; and it's always true that John cannot eat a pie Joe eats. If Joe can eat 2 pies, John can eat 3 pies, but there are 10 pies in the kitchen, what are you going to divide what by?Assuming Joe, John and the pie are all together in the same environment (e.g. John's kitchen). -- For every slice of the pie that Joe eats, means that there is one less slice that John can eat. — Roger Gregoire
For every piece of the pie that Joe eats, is one less piece that John can eat. InPitzotl, can you grasp this concept? Yes or No? — Roger Gregoire
You seem to be suggesting by an argument from common sense an absurdity. I could argue that there's virtually no milk in my fridge, because thousands of people drink milk, depriving me of milk, by the logic of this argument. It's kind of ridiculous. Do you grasp how ridiculous this is? — InPitzotl
...you seem to be fabricating a delusional interpretation of my words. — Roger Gregoire
Nope. It's a pretty direct interpretation of your words. — 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.