Mosquito Analogy

Roger Gregoire

MOSQUITO ANALOGY - Part 1

1. Imagine an elderly woman who becomes deathly ill if bitten by a mosquito. Further imagine this woman is alone in a room with 1 mosquito flying about. She is in an unsafe environment; her risk of getting bit by the mosquito (and getting deathly ill) is relatively high.

2. Now imagine a young man who is outside the room (is socially isolated) from this woman. This man, unlike the woman, is not susceptible to the ill effects of a mosquito bite. If a mosquito were to bite him, he would simply just slap and kill the annoying little bugger (permanently removing this pest from the environment; never to bite anyone ever again).

3. So what would happen if this man entered the room with this vulnerable woman, with this mosquito flying about?
…would the woman be safer if this man shared the same environment as her?,
…or would she be less safe?,
…or would there be no change to her risk of being bitten by the mosquito?

ANSWER: The logical (mathematical/statistical) answer is that she would be TWICE AS SAFE because he would be sharing a proportionate amount of the risk. The odds and risk of her getting bit will have instantly reduced in half!

***********

MOSQUITO ANALOGY - Part 2

4. So now imagine that this same man then takes off most of his clothes, thereby exposing 10X more skin area (than the woman) to this killer mosquito.

5. So now what happens to the safety of this vulnerable woman?
…does this (un-clothed man) further reduce her risk of being bitten by the mosquito?
…or does it increase her risk?
…or does it not have any effect?

ANSWER: The logical (mathematical/statistical) answer is that she would be TEN TIMES MORE SAFE because he is now taking on a disproportionate share of the risk. The odds/risk of her getting bit have now instantly reduced 10 fold!

**********

MORAL-OF-THE-STORY: Anyone that advises (or mandates) that we socially isolate and clothe our healthy immune population is LOGICALLY IGNORANT -- doing so greatly INCREASES THE DEATHS to our vulnerable population, and PERPETUATES the further mutations of these killer mosquitos.

***********

MORE SCARY THOUGHTS:

6. Now imagine if every time that a vulnerable person was bitten by a mosquito, mosquito eggs were planted under the skin, and within days, the eggs would hatch and more mosquitos would then fly out into the environment, making our contaminated environment even more contaminated. The more vulnerable one is (i.e. the weaker one's immune system), the larger the number of mosquitos that can be bred and replicated back out into the environment.

7. Now imagine each and every replication cycle yields the potential of mutation (via natural law's "survival of the fittest"), whereas these new mutation iterations now develop deadlier and more contagious breeds of mosquitoes.

8. Now imagine a vaccine is created to protect against the latest mutation of mosquitos, but people foolishly continue to socially isolate and stay clothed. So what happens?

ANSWER: Logically, the vaccine would be rendered useless (non-effective) because 1) it is logically impossible to develop vaccines at a faster rate than new mutations are developing (i.e. we can only get deeper in the hole!), and 2) any gains made by the vaccine would be more than erased by the damage done by the continued social isolation and clothing mandates.

Logically, if we want to stop these deadly mosquitos once-and-for-all, then, more importantly than vaccinations, we must allow healthy people to freely socialize un-clothed, or else the mosquitos will ultimately win the battle of "survival-of-the-fittest".

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

CONCLUSION: If we wish to save ourselves, then we need to "Follow the LOGIC" ...not the Bad Science (the science that disregards logic).

Tobias

Anyone that advises (or mandates) that we socially isolate and clothe our healthy immune population is LOGICALLY IGNORANT -- doing so greatly INCREASES THE DEATHS to our vulnerable population, and PERPETUATES the further mutations of these killer mosquitos. — Roger Gregoire

No of course not. Your thought experiement is predicated on the mosquito (or the virus) stinging once. The problem with a virus is, when it stings it multiplies itself, increasing the risk, not fading away in anonymity. If vaccinated people can become infected and might spread the disease it makes sense to slow down social contact lest the virus copies itself, increasing instead of descreasing the risk.

Roger Gregoire

Tobias, check the science. It is very rare for a healthy immune person to replicate and spread the virus.

Socially isolating and masking a healthy immune person (for fear of the rare chance that they may infect someone) is as logically irrational as banning ambulance drivers from responding to emergencies (for fear of the rare chance that they might get in an accident and kill someone). Exceptions don't dictate the rule.

Nils Loc

It is very rare for a healthy immune person to replicate and spread the virus. — Roger Gregoire

Most Covid-19 Cases Are Spread by People Without Symptoms

Roger Gregoire

Nils, these asymptomatic people are not necessarily "healthy immune" people. Science tells us that the healthier/stronger one's immune system, the less likely the replication (and subsequent spreading).

Bottom-line: there is LESS RISK to a vulnerable person surrounded by healthy unmasked immune people than not being surrounded by these healthy unmasked immune people.

Paine

↪Roger Gregoire

Measles.
Rubella.
Polio.
Tetanus.
Diphtheria.
Smallpox.
Influenza.

Your idea of the utility of exposure flies against the face of previous experience.

T Clark

↪Roger Gregoire

Lamest thought experiment ever. And that's saying something given how much philosophers and, especially, half-assed would-be philosophers like us here on the forum love a lame-ass thought experiment. Just to be clear, being lame is much worse than being wrong. I'm embarrassed to respond.

The analogy between the woman in the room with a mosquito and her in a room with a virus is, to put it kindly, flawed. By which I mean stupid. If there were viruses in the room, they would be spread evenly throughout the room. Bringing someone else into the room, clothed or naked, would have no effect on the likelihood of the woman being exposed.

Except that's not true. Although we can't be sure there are no viruses in the room before the new guy shows up, there should be very few. That's what isolation is about. Bringing someone in from outside probably increases the chances that there will be more viruses, which will raise the probability of exposure. The more people we let in, the greater the probability.

I won't go into the later analogies. I couldn't without giggling.

Conclusion: Dumb ass analogy. Wrong answer.

[Edited by poster]

Banno

You should be banned just for this one thread. — T Clark

:up:

T Clark

↪Banno

Yes, well. I just went back and edited that part out.

Roger Gregoire

The analogy between the woman in the room with a mosquito and her in a room with a virus is, to put it kindly, flawed. By which I mean stupid. If there were viruses in the room, they would be spread evenly throughout the room. Bringing someone else into the room, clothed or naked, would have no effect on the likelihood of the woman being exposed. — T Clark

Firstly, mosquitoes (and viruses) don't necessarily stand still in a room.

Secondly, my analogy is based on risk assessment (safety analysis). The more people that share a fixed risk the less the individual risk per person. This is a basic risk assessment calculation.

1 person in a room with 1 mosquito =1X risk per person.
2 people in a room with 1 mosquito = 0.5X (½) risk per person.
100 people in the room with 1 mosquito = 0.01X (1/100) risk per person.

Roger Gregoire

Bringing someone in from outside probably increases the chances that there will be more viruses, which will raise the probability of exposure. The more people we let in, the greater the probability. — T Clark

T Clark, check the science. It is extremely rare for the young (immune) man to replicate and cough up (or "bring in") mosquitoes into the room.

In other words, there is MORE RISK to the vulnerable woman if the man does NOT enter the room, than if the man does, and coughs up mosquitoes.

And likewise, there is MORE RISK to a drowning woman if the lifeguard does NOT enter the pool, than if he does, and accidentally drowns the woman.

*******
Bottom-line: there is risk in everything we do. The risk to the vulnerable woman is significantly LESS with the unclothed young man in the room, than without him.

T Clark

T Clark, check the science. It is extremely rare for the young (immune) man to replicate and cough up (or "bring in") mosquitoes into the room. — Roger Gregoire

A young person is not necessarily less likely to catch the disease than an older person, just less likely to have serious consequences. Also, as I noted, viruses would diffuse throughout the air in the room, meaning that another person in the room will not decrease the likelihood that the woman will be exposed.

Show me this science you refer to.

Nothing you have said changes my opinion of your post. It's still wrong.

The risk to the vulnerable woman is significantly LESS with the unclothed young man in the room, than without him. — Roger Gregoire

Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true.

Agent Smith

Spandrel!

In evolutionary biology, a spandrel is a phenotypic trait that is a byproduct of the evolution of some other characteristic, rather than a direct product of adaptive selection. — Wikipedia

So I read this article about a certain mosquito-infested region in the US. Researchers compared mosquito-borne diseases over time and found a dramatic drop in such illnesses from about mid-1900s. The explanation: TV had been invented (more people were staying indoors, away from the flying bloodsuckers, watching their favorite programs). I wonder if such ingenious solutions amount to psychological manipulation ( :naughty: ). TV has significant health benefits! Who would've thought? Covid could've been controlled with high quality TV programs.

Coming to the OP, I'd say the man (bless his soul) took a bullet for this woman! Bodyguards do that, draw the fire so to speak. Good OP.

Isaac

"Follow the LOGIC" ...not the Bad Science (the science that disregards logic). — Roger Gregoire

Yet apparently...

Science tells us that the healthier/stronger one's immune system, the less likely the replication (and subsequent spreading). — Roger Gregoire

Which 'science' would this be? The one you just instructed us to ignore?

if we want to stop these deadly mosquitos once-and-for-all, then, more importantly than vaccinations, we must allow healthy people to freely socialize un-clothed, or else the mosquitos will ultimately win the battle of "survival-of-the-fittest". — Roger Gregoire

Why would the old woman not just put a mask on, wash her hands frequently, and wipe down high contact surfaces for the few hours it takes for the 'mosquito' to die anyway since it can't survive outside of a body?

Engaging the services of a 'human hoover' seems incredibly stupid when an actual hoover would do the job just as well.

unenlightened

Trolls eat outrage. Isolation destroys trolls through starvation.

Roger Gregoire

Which 'science' would this be? The one you just instructed us to ignore? — Isaac

I am very much pro science. But science that disregards logic is Bad Science. Ignore Bad Science!

Roger Gregoire

It baffles me that people close their eyes to simple math in favor of Bad Science.

The simple math is -- the more people sharing a viral load, the less individual risk per person. The more healthy unmasked immune people surrounding a vulnerable person, the proportionally safer she becomes.

Bad Science is telling us to keep healthy unmasked immune people away from the vulnerable, thereby insuring their death.

It is time to question this Bad Science, and stop being puppets to it.

T Clark

The simple math is -- the more people sharing a viral load, the less individual risk per person. The more healthy unmasked immune people surrounding a vulnerable person, the proportionally safer she becomes. — Roger Gregoire

If we were talking about mosquitos, and if a mosquitos behaved the way viruses do, and if mosquitos could only bite one person, perhaps you would be right. But viruses do not behave like mosquitos and you will never find one virus in a room.

So, show us some evidence. I've asked before. Several other people have too. Put up or shut up. Your so-called "simple math" is wrong.

Isaac

The more healthy unmasked immune people surrounding a vulnerable person, the proportionally safer she becomes. — Roger Gregoire

The question is not whether vulnerable people would be safer this way, it's whether there's an even safer means to protect them.

Even if you were right about healthy people not contributing much to viral replication, there's still an even safer way to protect the vulnerable. Keep everyone masked, clean their environment and simply wait for the viruses there to die, it'll only take a few hours.

Alternatively, vaccinate them against the virus so that they are protected that way.

The question is why would you advocate the option which puts people at risk when there's an even less risky option open to you?

Caldwell

CONCLUSION: If we wish to save ourselves, then we need to "Follow the LOGIC" ...not the Bad Science (the science that disregards logic). — Roger Gregoire

The replies are asking about the behavior of the mosquito compared with the behavior of the virus. You should try to explain this, as this is what they're asking.

So, for those asking, the virus, though non-living organism, does seek a host to replicate. It is not just floating in the air waiting to get hitched. The mosquito behaves the same way, and it is a living organism. It seeks a host.

Disclaimer: I am not joining this thread to side with the OP. I don't know much about the virus.

tim wood

If we wish to save ourselves, then we need to "Follow the LOGIC" ...not the Bad Science — Roger Gregoire

There's bad logic too, or is the moon really made of green cheese.

Caldwell

though non-living organism — Caldwell

This is a misnomer on my part -- organisms are at least single-celled. Virus is not a celled organism. Rather they're a coded agent. "Agent" is the proper reference to a virus.

T Clark

So, for those asking, the virus, though non-living organism, does seek a host to replicate. — Caldwell

This is not correct. Viruses are not self-propelled. They move passively with the substance they are attached to, e.g. droplets of moisture from the lungs.

Nils Loc

In this ideal world of minimizing risk of exposure to the vulnerable, immune folks would have real knowledge of their immunity and would adjust their social behavior accordingly by recurrent testing.

But that isn't the world we live in. Wearing masks and social distancing is a way to minimize risk of exposure when we don't know who is theoretically "immune" and incapable of transmission or not.

Roger Gregoire

If we were talking about mosquitos, and if a mosquitos behaved the way viruses do, and if mosquitos could only bite one person, perhaps you would be right. But viruses do not behave like mosquitos and you will never find one virus in a room.

So, show us some evidence. I've asked before. Several other people have too. Put up or shut up. Your so-called "simple math" is wrong. — T Clark

The number of mosquitoes (or viral particles) is irrelevant. Doubling the number of people within a given environment cuts the risk in half to any individual within that environment. Math is math regardless of the size of the number.

T Clark

The number of mosquitoes (or viral particles) is irrelevant. Doubling the number of people within a given environment cuts the risk in half to any individual within that environment. — Roger Gregoire

Note to self - Do not respond to posts from RG in the future.

Caldwell

This is not correct. Viruses are not self-propelled. They move passively with the substance they are attached to, e.g. droplets of moisture from the lungs. — T Clark

In that case, @Roger Gregoire's analogy is misplaced as he mistakes the mosquito's search for a host before it lands on the host as similar to how a virus seeks its host before it enters the lungs, etc of the host. I stand corrected.

Caldwell

The odds/risk of her getting bit have now instantly reduced 10 fold! — Roger Gregoire

It works if we're only talking about the mosquito seeking a host. But virus behaves differently.

ANSWER: The logical (mathematical/statistical) answer is that she would be TEN TIMES MORE SAFE because he is now taking on a disproportionate share of the risk. The odds/risk of her getting bit have now instantly reduced 10 fold! — Roger Gregoire

I don't think the spread of the virus is a zero-sum game -- such as, some could take the risk so others could be safer. If the virus's search for a host begins externally, like the mosquito flying around searching for another animal to bite, your findings could work.
But I have not really paid much attention to collective exposure to virus as a means of protection.

tim wood

The number of mosquitoes (or viral particles) is irrelevant. Doubling the number of people within a given environment cuts the risk in half to any individual within that environment. Math is math regardless of the size of the number. — Roger Gregoire

Yikes!! This is just plain wrong! There may be some circumstances where this kind of math may apply, but certainly not in all, and certainly not in the current example(s).

Roger Gregoire

To help better understand the safety benefits represented in the mosquito analogy, imagine the following --

Instead of a mosquito, imagine there is a mad killer with a gun loaded with one bullet, in this room with the woman. If the killer is intent on killing (shooting) someone, then the woman is in grave danger. ...agreed?

Now, if another person enters into the room, is the woman now safer (with a killer with one bullet), or less safe? How about if 100 people enter this room, is the woman more safe or less safe?

The math and logic (in determining risk) is very simple and straightforward. Take the number of bullets and divide it by the number of people in the room to ascertain the risk assessment to any individual in the room.

For example, if you double the number of people, you cut the individual risk in half. ...agreed?

*******************
Furthermore, many of you posters here seem to be subscribing to Bad Science. Healthy immune people (in general) do not spread the virus. True (good) science comes from empirical data, not from the scare-media, or from medical/scientific "opinions".

Remember, it is LOGIC that gives us truths (and falses), ...not Science. Science provides us with the premise statements (empirical data) from which to draw logical conclusions. Many good scientists are very poor logicians. (e.g. Fauci).

Science that disregards logic is Bad Science. Don't follow Bad Science. Follow the Logic!

Tobias

Instead of a mosquito, imagine there is a mad killer with a gun loaded with one bullet, in this room with the woman. If the killer is intent on killing (shooting) someone, then the woman is in grave danger. ...agreed?

Now, if another person enters into the room, is the woman now safer (with a killer with one bullet), or less safe? How about if 100 people enter this room, is the woman more safe or less safe?

The math and logic (in determining risk) is very simple and straightforward. Take the number of bullets and divide it by the number of people in the room to ascertain the risk assessment to any individual in the room.

For example, if you double the number of people, you cut the individual risk in half. ...agreed? — Roger Gregoire

The analogy is again false. The virus is not a killer with one bullet. There is not 'one'virus flying about potentially only infecting one person. There is a virus load in the room, potentially infecting people. A more apt analogy is to imagine the virus as a potential bout of insanity which potentially makes an ordinary sane person draw his or her gun and start firing of bullets en masse and randomly. It is pretty clear than that the woman is safer on her own than in the vicinity of other people, even if those other people have had some antidote against this affliction which works 90% of the time but not a 100%.

Mosquito Analogy

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions