Roger thinks that herd immunity works by the people with antibodies vacuuming up, and killing all the viruses so that they can't infect others. — Metaphysician Undercover
I don't necessarily disagree. The highest density of the virus (in the environment) is that which is closest to a shedder of the virus, hence the reasoning to stay 6 feet apart. But what one breathes in from the environment, or the surfaces in the environment that one touches (and then touches nose/mouth) is where one ultimately comes in contact with the virus. In other words, it is the contaminated environment that one is in, that determines if one receives the virus. — Roger Gregoire
But masking healthy people who would normally remove more of the virus than they contribute. — Roger Gregoire
No one is removing the virus. That's not how it works. — Kenosha Kid
But no one acts as a viral vacuum. — Kenosha Kid
Herd immunity is when a large enough percentage of the population has got antibodies to the disease that it cannot spread! — counterpunch
Imagine 10 people inside a room with 10 mosquitos flying about. Further imagine that 0 (none) of these people are healthy (a mosquito bite does not bother them) and all 10 people are vulnerable, whereas a mosquito bite would result in a severe reaction and certain death. So the odds of a vulnerable person dying from a mosquito bite in this scenario is 100% (10 mosquitos / 10 total people) which equals 10 dead people.
Now imagine we add 10 healthy people to this room (environment) of 10 vulnerable people. So now the odds of a vulnerable person dying from a mosquito bite in this scenario is 50% (10 mosquitos / 20 total people) which equals 5 dead people.
Now imagine we told these 10 healthy people in the room to strip down naked to expose 10 times more body surface area for the mosquitoes to bite, and then put the excess clothing around the vulnerable people to give them an extra layer of protection. So now the odds of a vulnerable person dying from a mosquito bite in this scenario is 5% (10 mosquitos/(20 total people x 10 times more exposure to healthy people and more protection to vulnerable people)) which equals 0.5 dead people. — Roger Gregoire
Yes, the quickest way to attain herd immunity is to allow the virus to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time. — Valentinus
The protective effects of herd immunity just doesn't happen "magically" because we added more healthy immune people into the mix. There is a reason that we get this "protective effect". — Roger Gregoire
If what you say were true, then the protective effects of herd immunity would be impossible. — Roger Gregoire
Slowing down infections helped many people not die from other infections. It is a simple approach. You find a way to not die and you take it. — Valentinus
The second problem with your approach is that communities that protect themselves by masking and demanding other people to do the same are safer than the ones who do not. — Valentinus
The protective effects of herd immunity just doesn't happen "magically" because we added more healthy immune people into the mix. There is a reason that we get this "protective effect". — Roger Gregoire
People with immunity break vectors, that is all. — Kenosha Kid
If what you say were true, then the protective effects of herd immunity would be impossible. — Roger Gregoire
No, they're very possible, just not by batshit crazy means. The probability of person C indirectly catching the virus from person A via person B drops if person B is immune. Since viruses need to spread to survive, breaking the vectors it can spread along can kill it dead even if a quarter of the people aren't immune. It's nothing to do with subtracting the virus, it's just to do with creating barriers to its propagation. — Kenosha Kid
I don't know where you're learning this crap from but please stop going there, it's properly insane. — Kenosha Kid
Roger, I wrote a program demonstrating the effect. I pasted pieces of the program here. I showed you a running video. You started crazily asserting that my program "assumed" things. But you didn't actually critique the actual program.Please describe, or give an illustration (like my mosquito illustration) on how "breaking vectors" magically creates a "protective effect". You will see that it actually makes things worse. If you remove healthy people far away from vulnerable people, vulnerable people die faster, are less protected. — Roger Gregoire
Wrong. The probability is ; expected dead is approximately 6.513 on average. Here's a simulation:Imagine 10 people inside a room with 10 mosquitos flying about. Further imagine that 0 (none) of these people are healthy (a mosquito bite does not bother them) and all 10 people are vulnerable, whereas a mosquito bite would result in a severe reaction and certain death. So the odds of a vulnerable person dying from a mosquito bite in this scenario is 100% (10 mosquitos / 10 total people) which equals 10 dead people. — Roger Gregoire
#include <random> #include <iostream> struct Person { unsigned int times_bit; Person() : times_bit(0) {} }; int main() { std::mt19937 rng; std::uniform_int_distribution<unsigned> bite(0, 9); unsigned times_all_bit = 0; unsigned each_bit[10] = {0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}; unsigned cumulative_mortality = 0; for (unsigned n=0; n<10000; ++n) { // Nobody bit yet this run Person people[10]; // 10 mosquitos bite for (unsigned mosquito=0; mosquito<10; ++mosquito) { ++people[bite(rng)].times_bit; } // Count the dead this round unsigned num_dead=0; for (unsigned p=0; p<10; ++p) { if (people[p].times_bit>0) { ++num_dead; } } // Add to times_all_bit if everyone was bit if (num_dead==10) ++times_all_bit; // Add number dead to cumulative mortality cumulative_mortality += num_dead; // Accumulate number of times each person was bit for (unsigned e=0; e<10; ++e) if (people[e].times_bit>0) ++each_bit[e]; } std::cout << "Out of 10000 runs, everyone was bit in " << times_all_bit << ".\n"; std::cout << "Average deaths per round is " << (cumulative_mortality/10000.0) << ".\n"; std::cout << "Breakdown of each bit:\n"; for (unsigned p=0; p<10; ++p) { std::cout << " person " << (p+1) << " bit in " << each_bit[p] << " runs\n"; } }
Out of 10000 runs, everyone was bit in 3. Average deaths per round is 6.5107. Breakdown of each bit: person 1 bit in 6593 runs person 2 bit in 6415 runs person 3 bit in 6548 runs person 4 bit in 6491 runs person 5 bit in 6446 runs person 6 bit in 6533 runs person 7 bit in 6594 runs person 8 bit in 6491 runs person 9 bit in 6494 runs person 10 bit in 6502 runs
This is why I think governments are simply resorting to simpler "solutions" (restrictions and lockdowns) that are actually not as effective. Administering complex social policy is in fact well very complex and governments tend to avoid complex solutions. — dazed
Well, there is indeed a real protective effect demonstrated by this program based on breaking vectors. — InPitzotl
Let's review, again:Your program only shows the protective effects of social distancing, not herd immunity. — Roger Gregoire
My program runs until simulated eradication. 80%/95% scenarios are "sufficient proportion of a population" being immune (underlined). The spread from person to person is likely (ref next underlines) in proportion to the likelihood that potential persons are in the extended infection range (ref prior post). Those protections are area dependent, not vaccine dependent, so "even individuals not vaccinated" are offered protection, "because the disease has little opportunity to spread" to the areas they are in.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
It's really weird that you speculate about what the program might be doing, always incorrectly, when the program was intentionally made publicly available to you. I'm hiding exactly nothing; and you're just guessing incorrectly about what you can just see in a link. For your benefit, here are the links again:if your program is indeed based on "breaking vectors", then it is based on "social distancing" which is just the opposite of herd immunity. — Roger Gregoire
Let's review, again:
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. — InPitzotl
The spread from person to person is likely (ref next underlines) in proportion to the likelihood that potential persons are in the extended infection range (ref prior post). — InPitzotl
Well, there is indeed a real protective effect demonstrated by this program based on breaking vectors. — InPitzotl
...if your program is indeed based on "breaking vectors", then it is based on "social distancing" which is just the opposite of herd immunity. — Roger Gregoire
It's really weird that you speculate about what the program might be doing, always incorrectly… — 'InPitzotl"
Rather, people who are immune by this model simply don't spread the infection. That is what breaks the vector chains. — InPitzotl
They don't move closer, they don't vacuum up infections, they don't move further apart... they simply don't get infected and therefore can't spread infections. — InPitzotl
Stop right there. This is a mis-attribution. Here's the full text as it appeared in my post: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. — InPitzotl
...note that this comes from the the CDC glossary on the CDC website.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
The phrase "person to person" does not mean direct contact.This is Non-Truth #1. ... People's respiratory systems are NOT directly connected to one anther's. — Roger Gregoire
It changes nothing. The infection radius in the scenarios shown is 5, not zero as "directly connected to one anther's[sic]" implies.This is an IMPORTANT distinction that changes the mathematics involved in calculating probabilities and risk. — Roger Gregoire
No, I said this:There was no "speculation" on my part. You were the one that said it was "based on breaking vectors", not me. — Roger Gregoire
The program isn't based on breaking vectors. The effect it demonstrates is based on breaking vectors. Since you're a bit slow on the uptake, here's what everyone except for you understands.Well, there is indeed a real protective effect demonstrated by this program based on breaking vectors. — InPitzotl
The thing you refuted in this very post, which is the definition of herd immunity given by the CDC, can be used to explain why the 95% scenario run of this specific program actually in practice resulted in less dead people than the 80% scenario run of this specific program. The program model is complete and understood; it definitely does irrefutably work this way. As I said before, you're trying to wring blood from a stone here.This is not what creates the "protective effect" of herd immunity. — Roger Gregoire
You could.If this were true, then we could simply replace these healthy immune people with statues or rocks, — Roger Gregoire
"Herd immunity" is just a term for something. The CDC glossary defines what that term is. That description is modeled by the program which does indeed work this way.But herd immunity does not work that way. — Roger Gregoire
...spread from person to person… — CDC
You are arguing against the CDC — InPitzotl
If this were true, then we could simply replace these healthy immune people with statues or rocks… — Roger Gregoire
You could. — InPitzotl
1. In general, the more sick (very symptomatic) one is, the weaker their immune system is to fighting off the infection. And the weaker their immune system is to fighting off the infection, the greater the viral replication — Roger Gregoire
1. In general, the more sick (very symptomatic) one is, the weaker their immune system is to fighting off the infection. And the weaker their immune system is to fighting off the infection, the greater the viral replication. — Roger Gregoire
This is not correct. Ones immunity is not a “one size fits all” phenomenon. Whether someone’s immune system is good or not some people (due to specific genes) are more susceptible to infection via the spike protein of coronavirus. — Benj96
No, it's an example of a straw man.This is an example of bad science (...science that disregards logic). — Roger Gregoire
Person to person does not mean respiratory systems are directly connected. A person to person conversation doesn't mean sticking your tongue in someone's ear.People's respiratory systems are NOT directly connected to one another. — Roger Gregoire
Changes what? 5 isn't equal to 0.This is an IMPORTANT distinction that changes the mathematics involved in calculating probabilities and risk. — Roger Gregoire
Nope, because they do not mean "respiratory systems are directly connected to one another".Yes, if they claim that the virus transmits "person-to-person", then logically, they are wrong. — Roger Gregoire
Making an "appeal-to-authority" (a logical fallacy) is an irrational means of arguing; has no logical basis. — Roger Gregoire
See the problem?And it's not just me saying this, but virtually all medical experts, scientists, and health agencies (e.g. CDC, etc) also say this. — Roger Gregoire
If this were true, then we could simply replace these healthy immune people with statues or rocks… — Roger Gregoire
You could. — InPitzotl
No, Roger, this one of those "my opinion versus your opinion" things that isn't really about opinions.We obviously disagree over the CDC's usage of "person-to-person" in their definition of herd immunity. — Roger Gregoire
We can't talk strategy before you understand the basic concepts. And you don't understand the concepts.Okay, so what about this, how do we provide protection to vulnerable people if there are no healthy people in the same environment? — Roger Gregoire
Let me explain it this way. Here's the final state of 95% scenario again:But if you could, then what would be left to provide the protective effect to the vulnerable? — Roger Gregoire
That sounds like a "you" problem to me.Sorry InPitzotl, this (your reply) comes across as a creative "non-answer" to me. — Roger Gregoire
Wrong. The answer, which has been given to you before, only needs a single word: Distance.Its just a simple question. A simple sentence is all thats needed, — Roger Gregoire
Nope. If you understood what you were talking about, you would understand how the image I showed you directly answers your question. ...and not only answers it, but shows exactly how this protection is attained.I don't need a micro detailed account. — Roger Gregoire
LOL! But Roger, the micro detailed account I'm giving shows a complete, exhaustive understanding of why you're wrong. I'm not only telling you that you're wrong, and definitely not just repeating some "Them" like "The Evil Corporate Media"... I'm telling you why you're wrong, showing you precisely where, writing programs simulating it, showing you the full program, showing you how the program works, and showing you exactly what steps over time lead to the final results. What more could you possibly ask for as a criteria for knowing how this works?Either you know how a community of 100% vulnerable can be protected (in the absence of immune people) or you don't. — Roger Gregoire
"You would get tons more respect here admitting when you're wrong than this act of trying to make excuses for your claims. — InPitzotl
Nonsense. Here's why.InPitzotl, you are very disingenuous. — Roger Gregoire
Again, that's a "you" problem. See below.You seem to be more interested in finding ways to insult than in giving a straight answer. — Roger Gregoire
I'd rather not. You see, your problem throughout this ordeal is that you keep assuming things. We have a real model here, so let's just use it. Keeping the other parameters the same for maximal relevance (80x25, population 500, infection radius of 5, 5 initial infections, same reference unseeded RNG), it turns out that all 20 people die when initial immunization is 333. At 334, we get our first vulnerable survivor. So the threshold is 66.8% (=333/500). That is measured, not assumed.Let's assume the herd immunity threshold valueis 60%. — Roger Gregoire
No, Roger, I don't say that; you say I say that. What I say is clearly laid out in my very post to this thread... 17 days ago at the time of this post:And you say, all we need to do is not let these immune people shed virus back into the environment, and we get the protective effect to the other 40 vulnerable people. — Roger Gregoire
Adding in vaccinations, this describes the following state transitions:For discussion purposes only, I'll oversimplify. Let's say everyone is either healthy, or vulnerable. I'll grant 1 and 2 literally; vulnerable people who get sick die, and healthy people who get sick become immune. Unstated, for simplicity, let's presume that everyone who is vaccinated becomes immune.
But here's how the mechanics work. Everyone starts out uninfected, call that state (A). They can become infected, state (B), if exposed to a carrier. A carrier is essentially another person in state (B). Then if the person is healthy, they go to state (C1), immune. If they are vulnerable, they go to state (C2), dead. So in these terms we want to minimize the number of people in state (C2), death by covid. — InPitzotl
They don't. Every vulnerable person actually factually dies in the 60% scenario. But in the 66.8% scenario, exactly one vulnerable person survives. That one person survived in the 66.8% scenario because that one person was not in the extended infection range of any of the initial 5 sick people.So now I ask -- how do these 60 statues provide protection over the 40 vulnerable people in the community? — Roger Gregoire
This is not "in other words" Roger; it's an entirely different question. If that virus made its way to Ralph, Ralph's a goner. Likewise, in principle, Ralph could still die from other paths as well; Ralph is simply protected along this particular vector path. But as it happens in practice, in the 66.8% scenario, there are no vector paths that could lead to Roger from anywhere because every individual within 5 squares of Ralph is immune (including wrap-around).In other words, if a virus found its way into this community of now 100% vulnerable people, what would protect them? — Roger Gregoire
Told ya! But sorry, the answer doesn't change just because you can't understand it. Here is the actual 66.8% run without the immune people per your question.Without immune people in the mix, what is protecting them???? — Roger Gregoire
Yes. There's the picture....and your answer is "distance"? — Roger Gregoire
What statue? You could put your red herring anywhere you want; including where Ollie is....do we need to distance these statues to a remote island? — Roger Gregoire
It's not magic. Ralph doesn't get sick because his environment is never contaminated because no infected person contaminates it. By contrast, in the similar other-universe scenario of 66.6%, Ralph died because he got infected because Olley got infected and contaminated his environment, and Ralph is in said environment. I'm sorry you don't like the answer, but that's a precisely accurate description of exactly what you asked, so this is still just a "you" problem....will that then magically protect the 40 vulnerable people? — Roger Gregoire
Done! I used the real model (the program), related it to my initial post, computed the exact herd immunity threshold you asked about, found the critical survivor, named him (Ralph); found the initial vector, named him (Paul); found the critical immunized guy defining the threshold, named him (Olley); named the guy one step upstream (Smith), showed you a picture of the evolution steps, drew giant orange arrows to Olley for you, drew giant red arrows to Ralph for you, reran the scenario by removing the vulnerable people, showed the same overlay of the vector paths for you, with the same giant red arrow to Ralph, and an orange arrow drawn to the empty square Olley would have been on, actually discovered to my total lack of surprise that Ralph still survived, and explained exactly why this exact survivor survived in 66.8% and not in 66.6%, in practice, in terms of the same model I've been explaining to you since the first post... this is the same concept of herd immunity you claimed was impossible, explained to the last dotted i and crossed t.I think you need to look in the mirror, and take a closer look at your own words: — Roger Gregoire
What does "again, our discussion is done" mean?So again, our discussion is done, as I prefer not to debate with dishonest, disingenuous people. — Roger Gregoire
Or, we could practice social distancing.We can do this state by state (or maybe city by city, or community by community). For example, let's take all the immune people in Oklahoma and ship them Arizona, that way we now have 100% certainty that these immune Oklahoman's, that now are in Arizona, will not shed any virus whatsoever back into Oklahoma. — Roger Gregoire
I hate wearing a mask! Mostly because I think it's useless. — Book273
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.