Anyone that advises (or mandates) that we socially isolate and clothe our healthy immune population is LOGICALLY IGNORANT — Roger Gregoire

Who is advising for or applies isolation of the healthy immune population???

Then, the mosquito example you gave supports the isolation illusion principle, because the mosquito(s) can be killed before doing harm or die after a bite. But what about a virus, which cannot be killed but instead spread in the environment and transmitted even by relatively immune people (who will also be infected but they won't suffer from severe health conditions)?

Then, the mosquito example you gave stands supports the isolation illusion principle, because the mosquito(s) can be killed before doing harm or die after a bite. But what about a virus, which cannot be killed but only spread in the environment and transited even by relatively immune people (who will also be infected but they won't suffer from severe health conditions)? — Alkis Piskas

@Roger Gregoire'- your analogy fails on multiple levels. Fix the analogy and your conclusion gets traction.

Hey you all, many of you are WAY over-thinking (over-complicating) the mosquito/bullet analogy. The analogy was meant to show a simple risk analysis. This is not rocket science, it is just simple logic/math.

**********

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. — Tobias

Tobias, you are misinterpreting the analogy. The "one bullet" represents a "viral infection", or if we wish to be more literal, the "one bullet" can represent "a group of 1000 viral particles" (note: it takes a minimum inhalation of 1000 viral particles to create an infection.)

********

Then, the mosquito example you gave stands supports the isolation illusion principle, because the mosquito(s) can be killed before doing harm or die after a bite. — Alkis

Correct. And viral particles can also be killed/die prior to inhalation, and of course, after inhalation.

But what about a virus, which cannot be killed but only spread in the environment… — Alkis

Viral particles are killed in the environment. They can only survive a few hours airborne and/or a few days on some surfaces.

...and transited even by relatively immune people (who will also be infected but they won't suffer from severe health conditions)? — Alkis

Alkis, contrary to what we are told by the scare-media and by Bad Science, healthy immune people (in general) do NOT spread the virus.

The risk of a healthy immune person infecting a vulnerable person is extremely low, and does not logically justify preventing saving lives.

Similarly, the risk of ambulance drivers getting into traffic accidents (and killing someone) is extremely low, and does not logically justify preventing ambulance drivers from getting into traffic to go saves lives.

The Logical fallacy being committed is called "Hasty Generalization".

The point is that the naked man can introduce viruses where there are none. You suppose there is already a mosquito in the room he enters, while in reality there is none.

The point is that the naked man can introduce viruses where there are none. — AgentTangerine

Agent, check the science. In general, healthy immune people ("naked men") do NOT shed/spread the virus.

**********

You suppose there is already a mosquito in the room he enters, while in reality there is none. — AgentTangerine

Logically (and contrary to Bad Science) the transmission of the virus is from "person-to-environment" and from "environment-to-person", ...NOT from "person-to-person" (...people's respiratory systems are not directly connected to each other!).

People get infected by being in contaminated environments. Period.

Tobias, you are misinterpreting the analogy. The "one bullet" represents a "viral infection", or if we wish to be more literal, the "one bullet" can represent "a group of 1000 viral particles" (note: it takes a minimum inhalation of 1000 viral particles to create an infection.) — Roger Gregoire

Yes but that does not matter one bit. Your premise is that a viral load will only infect one person, whereas a viral load might infect 1 or 20 or a 100 people... It is you who restricts the killer to just one shot, not me. If we are all overthinking your mosquito analogy, it might be because we are all stupid or because your mosquito analgy kind of sucks... think carefully about your answer...

@Roger Gregoire- your analogy fails on multiple levels. Fix the analogy and your conclusion gets traction. — Caldwell

I agree.

People get infected by being in contaminated environments. Period. — Roger Gregoire

So clean the environment. It's quite simple. SARS‑CoV‑2 is killed quite easily, most anti-bacterial wipes will do it, soap and water, just time with UV light, opening a window will clear many airborne particles...

Or give the vulnerable woman a vaccine so she can do the virus-killing herself.

You still haven't answered my question as to why you're even discussing such a massively inefficient and risky strategy as using a healthy person's immune system to do the virus-killing when there are so many less risky and more efficient methods.

Using a naked man will certainly attract a musquito. I hope he bites his ass. Viruses won't feel attracted to the man. They probably take refugee in the poor woman. Especially when the see the musquito on his ass... When the man enters the room, he probably stirs the viruses in the room. They lie on the floor, waiting for someone to get in the room. The moving air will transport them to the old lady, whose immune response will probably lower because of the sight of naked young man. Heart attack. :broken:

I'm not sure if making love to the young man will help her. She will have an unforgettable time though. Or a heart attack... :broken:

Your premise is that a viral load will only infect one person… — Tobias

Not so - you (and others) are reading WAY TOO MUCH into this very simple analogy.

We can have as many bullets/mosquitos/viral particles as we want. The math does not change. I only used the 1 mosquito (or 1 bullet) to make the math (in calculating Risk Assessment) super simple for everyone to plainly see.

Here is the Simple Math: Total Risk divided by Number of People Sharing that Risk = Individual Risk

For Example:
1. If the total risk is 4 bullets and there are 8 people in the room then the individual risk = 0.5X (4/8).
2. If the total risk is 2 mosquitos and there are 20 people in the room then the individual risk = 0.1X (2/20)
3. If the total risk is 1000 viral particles floating around in this room (and 1000 particles = 1 infection) and there is 1 person in the room, then the individual risk = 1X (1/1).

The inability to understand simple basic RISK ASSESSMENT is causing us to act irrationally; causing more harm than good; causing us to make "hasty generalizations" (a logical fallacy).

Examples of this irrational behavior:
1. Intentionally preventing ambulances from responding to emergencies for fear the ambulance itself may get into an accident and kill some one. --- this causes more harm (deaths) than good (non-deaths).

2. Intentionally preventing lifeguards from saving a drowning swimmer for fear the lifeguard might drown while saving the person. --- this causes more harm (deaths) than good (non-deaths).

3. Intentionally masking and social distancing healthy people for fear that they might infect and kill a vulnerable person. --- this causes more harm (deaths) than good (non-deaths).

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

We have been so brainwashed to believe that masking and social distancing healthy people is a good thing, that we passionately and blindly defend it against people like me. If only we could temporarily suspend our emotion and passion for a minute and take an honest logical look at the situation, we would then realize the foolishness of our actions.

And if we can't suspend our emotion/passion to look at this issue from a logical perspective, then we will continue being part of the cancel-culture mob of insulting anyone that disagrees with our viewpoint. God help us.

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

People get infected by being in contaminated environments. Period. — Roger Gregoire

So clean the environment. It's quite simple. SARS‑CoV‑2 is killed quite easily, most anti-bacterial wipes will do it, soap and water, just time with UV light, opening a window will clear many airborne particles… — Isaac

Yes, agreed. All this helps. So, how's that working for us so far?

Until we allow our healthy population to unmask (and fully socialize), covid will stick around, and continually breed and mutate into more contagious variants (as evidenced by empirical evidence).

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

Or give the vulnerable woman a vaccine so she can do the virus-killing herself. — Isaac

If the woman is truly vulnerable, then a vaccine won't protect her (as evidenced by empirical evidence). Ultimately vaccines are useless if we don't allow our healthy people to protect our vulnerable people.

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

You still haven't answered my question as to why you're even discussing such a massively inefficient and risky strategy… — Isaac

There is nothing "inefficient or risky" about it. This has been Mother-Natures way of protecting mankind for eons. The healthy protect the vulnerable.

Somehow, we have allowed a good scientist, but logically illiterate person (Fauci), to convince us into inadvertently destroying ourselves. And the cancel-culture mob (the passionate blind followers) to shut down anyone that disagrees with his dangerous irrationality. There are many tens of thousands of experts/scientists that see the logical flaw in Dr. Fauci's advice/opinion, but they are shut down by the cancel-culture mob who instead of having logical debate/discussion, prefer to insult and destroy the lives/careers of those that disagree.

Don't be part of the mob. Look at this issue logically; rationally. Our lives depend on it.

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

Using a naked man will certainly attract a mosquito. I hope he bites his ass. Viruses won't feel attracted to the man... — AgentTangerine

LOL Agent. The point of the "naked" man was to illustrate the amount of "risk exposure''. Mosquitoes are attracted to skin. The more skin exposed, the greater the disproportionate risk between the two people in the room.

If we mask the vulnerable lady and unmask the healthy man, then a very large disproportionate share of the risk shifts over to the man, thereby making the vulnerable lady significantly safer.

People really need to learn and understand Risk Assessment 101 before blindly following some of our political leaders dangerously irrational advice.

Sure Roger, all those public health and environmental institutes know nothing about risk assessment, but luckily you found the solution. The problem is you are working with a set number of people who can be infected. However, that is not how a virus behaves. It is not like you put 50 people in a room, but there is only enough virus going around to infect 20. Than you would be right of course. Put more people in the room and the risk for each person in the room decreases. The problem everyone in the room might potentially get infected and if I get infected, the chance does not become any less for you to get infected.

You are presupposing a zero sum game where the number of possible infections is fixed. However, it is not a zero sum game but a positive sum game. Me getting infected will actually increase the chances of you getting infected because I will also start spreading the virus. Each time an infected person exhales new virus is realeased. If one does get infected one will spread the virus, even when vaccinated, albeit to a far lesser extent. That means more people may become infected increasing the risk to all of us of contamination.

We can have as many bullets/mosquitos/viral particles as we want. The math does not change. I only used the 1 mosquito (or 1 bullet) to make the math (in calculating Risk Assessment) super simple for everyone to plainly see. — Roger Gregoire

Yes. But viruses belong to another class of stochastic variables. A virus doesn't fly around the room like a mosquito. The naked man doesn’t act like a lightning rod for the viruses, as for the mosquito. The mosquito might temporarily be occupied with the man's ass, as a load of mosquitos might. The same holds for a huge number of viruses entering the man. Inside the man they can't harm the woman. Mosquitos are search-and-suckers. Viruses only suckers The man might take some away, but later on he will emit new ones (despite of being immune), increasing the risk for the woman. They might even be introduced by him in the first place, which is what actually happened a few years ago. Introducing the naked man will indeed take viruses away from the room. But a lot will remain, and I doubt that paying the Chippendales for visiting the elderly centers is a good way to get rid of viruses in the rooms of faint-hearted ladies of 90 years old.

I doubt that paying the Chippendales for visiting the elderly centers is a good way to get rid of viruses in the rooms of faint-hearted ladies of 90 years old. — AgentTangarine

:rofl:

Yes, agreed. All this helps. So, how's that working for us so far? — Roger Gregoire

We don't know - people are barely doing it because we've been sold the fantasy that the vaccine will save us like some Disney prince, so there's barely any investment in protecting the vulnerable at all, they're still stuffed in overcrowded, understaffed, under-ventilated, under-supplied health facilities, and half the world still doesn't have access to a vaccine for it's vulnerable because the parasitic arseholes who run the pharmaceutical companies are more concerned about their quarterly profits than they are about people's lives and won't release the fucking patents, that we fucking paid for them to discover in the first place...

If the woman is truly vulnerable, then a vaccine won't protect her (as evidenced by empirical evidence). — Roger Gregoire

What empirical evidence? Literally all the available evidence is that the vaccines are highly effective at reducing the risk of severe outcomes in the vulnerable. Do you have some contrary studies?

There is nothing "inefficient or risky" about it. This has been Mother-Natures way of protecting mankind for eons. — Roger Gregoire

The second sentence is unrelated to the first. The risk is obvious - that the person you think is 'healthy' turns out not to be and actually increases the number of viruses in 'the room'. A risk completely eliminated by just leaving the vulnerable person in isolation and cleaning her room.

There are many tens of thousands of experts/scientists that see the logical flaw in Dr. Fauci's advice/opinion — Roger Gregoire

I don't doubt that for a moment (and have written extensively about it). The point here is that they don't agree with you either. Most scientists who disagree with Fauci's approach advocate a policy of protecting the the vulnerable with vaccines, healthcare, social distancing, masking, and hygiene.

Again, if you know of any scientists who agree with you, then cite them, otherwise we're just making shit up, and that's a pointless and dangerous exercise.

The man might take some away, but later on he will emit new ones (despite of being immune), increasing the risk for the woman. — AgentTangerine

Agent, this is the FALSE premise statement that many of us have been brainwashed to believe.

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

Me getting infected will actually increase the chances of you getting infected because I will also start spreading the virus. — Tobias

Tobias, this statement is FALSE. If you are healthy and get infected it will REDUCE the chance of me getting infected (assuming that we are in the same environment).

Remember, healthy people (in general) do not spread the virus. When the virus encounters a healthy immune person the viral transmission is STOPPED (and removed from the environment), thereby protecting nearby vulnerable people.

And yes, some healthy people can, in rare cases, spread the virus instead of stopping the virus. But this 'exception' does not logically justify preventing saving people's lives. There is more risk (deaths) in not letting healthy people fully socialize unmasked, than there is otherwise.

We need to be careful not to make "hasty generalizations" (a logical fallacy). This is when we hyper-focus on the few, or the bad (which prevents us from seeing the many, or the good), which then causes us to foolishly do more harm than good. For example…

1. If we hyper-focus on the deaths caused by some ambulance drivers, then we are blinded to see all the good; all the deaths that ambulance drivers prevent, thereby causing us to foolishly ban ambulance drivers from responding to emergencies (...ultimately causing more harm than good).

2. If we hyper-focus on the crime committed by some cops, then we are blinded to see all the good; all the crime (and deaths) that cops prevent, thereby causing us to foolishly defund (eliminate cops) from responding to crime (...ultimately causing more harm than good).

3. If we hyper-focus on the rare chance of healthy people spreading the virus, then we are blinded to see all the deaths that healthy people prevent, thereby causing us to foolishly prohibit healthy people from saving vulnerable people (...ultimately causing more harm than good).


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

The risk is obvious - that the person you think is 'healthy' turns out not to be and actually increases the number of viruses in 'the room'. — Isaac

This is a fair and legitimate concern. I don't think we should allow everyone to run free. But certainly, at a minimum, we should allow our younger population and healthy adults (those with no known underlying conditions), and especially those healthy people that have been vaccinated (!) to run free (fully socialize unmasked).

Since it is our (strong/healthy) immune systems that stop this virus, why are we hiding away the stoppers (those with strong/healthy immune systems) away from stopping this virus?

Hiding (social distancing/masking) from the virus is impossible. We can't make it go away by hiding. We all cant simultaneously live in sterile astronaut suits for 2 consecutive weeks until this thing dies out. One infraction starts the pandemic all over again.

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

A risk completely eliminated by just leaving the vulnerable person in isolation and cleaning her room. — Isaac

This is very idealistic, and not very pragmatic (nor realistic). We can't lock up every vulnerable person into a sterile environment (forever!) on this planet. One infraction will start an outbreak all over again. (...remember this whole pandemic started from only one person on this planet).

The only real solution is Mother Nature's way; let the healthy protect the vulnerable. We can't vaccinate our way out of this mess. We can never create new vaccines at a faster pace than new mutations will occur. We need Mother Nature's help. Doing opposite of Mother Nature only insures we lose this battle.

The only real solution is Mother Nature's way; — Roger Gregoire

Right. the way of the savannah, prairie, veldt. Also "red in tooth and claw"; survival of the fittest; death to the unfit.

So why vaccines? Eh? Smallpox, polio, diphtheria, rabies. At least for seventeen major diseases. And if only they followed your advice everyone would have been saved! Or, you being correct, the right way to treat disease is to ignore it!

Vaccinations work. In the short term for sure. It's the question if it works on the long term. Many antibiotics don't function anymore. What if the virus again mutates? New boosters? How does this work out on natural immunity? Will it get immune to vaccination, which means it says: "Let the virus in! No real thread to be expected, as last time we didn't get sick, so why bother now?" Stimulating it periodically with stuff that's innocent will possibly render it useless after a few times.

When I can't get my way the answer is always more force, more mandates, to cede more rights to governments.

So we can all be safe.

My love for power and telling others what to do flows from my essential goodness and desire to be a protector. :pray:

Vaccinations work. — AgentTangerine

Yes, they work so long as we don't mask (and socially isolate) our healthy vaccinated population.

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

The masking of our healthy vaccinated population renders the vaccine ineffective.

1 step forward, 2 steps back.

Any gains made by vaccination is more than erased by the losses created by masking (and social distancing) the healthy vaccinated population.

1 step forward, 2 steps back.

Repeat after me, over and over again, until we finally come to our senses.

And if we don't come to our senses, then we will be on a endless trail of vaccine after vaccine, booster after booster, chasing the never-ending end, like a dog chasing his tail.

Yes, they work so long as we don't mask (and socially isolate) our healthy vaccinated population. — Roger Gregoire

What has masking to do with working? It works also when masking. Are you saying it works only if you don't mask because healthy people take away viruses around the fragile people?

Yes, they [vaccinations] work so long as we don't mask (and socially isolate) our healthy vaccinated population.

…Any gains made by vaccination is more than erased by the losses created by masking (and social distancing) the healthy vaccinated population. — Roger Gregoire

What has masking to do with working? It works also when masking. Are you saying it works only if you don't mask because healthy people take away viruses around the fragile people? — AgentTangerine

I am saying that unmasked healthy people protect vulnerable people from getting infected by being in close proximity with them. The protective effect is significant! The proof is in the risk assessment calculation.

The reason that many of us can't recognize this protective effect is because we have been pre-conditioned to falsely believe that this virus transmits "person-to-person". We have been pre-conditioned to believe that people next to each other is 'BAD', and that people separated (at least 6') away from each other is 'GOOD' (via non-truth propaganda/slogans such as "Social Distancing Saves Lives"). For anything that contradicts our inner notion of 'GOOD' and 'BAD' is automatically discarded (by our minds) as 'WRONG'. Hence, the strong passionate defense and insults against people like me claiming that we've got it all (our 'good' and 'bad') backwards.

Contrary to our pre-conditioned beliefs, this virus does NOT transmit "person-to-person" (our respiratory systems are not directly connected to each other!). The virus transmits "person-to-environment" and "environment-to-person". We get infected by being in contaminated environments. Period. -- For example, someone could spew (cough/sneeze) tens of thousands of viral particles into our local grocery store, and be thousands of miles away (more than 6 feet away!) when these particles infect a vulnerable person. (Note: viral particles can survive many hours airborne and up to a few days on particular surfaces e.g. cardboard, etc).

Bottom-line: We get infected by being in "contaminated environments". Period. Not via "person-to-person". Once we are able to grasp this notion (this truth) into our brains, then we can more readily see and understand the protective effect of unmasked healthy people in close proximity of vulnerable people. We can then see and understand the risk assessment/ safety analysis. We can then see that we are killing our people (via separations and maskings) faster than we are saving them (via vaccinations).

Until then, we (our minds) will automatically reject any notion of people being "close together" or "unmasked" as 'BAD'. Our brain/mind tells us that this notion is 'BAD' because it is counter to what we have been pre-conditioned to believe. Unfortunately, we have been pre-conditioned to believe a falsity. Hopefully people (especially our political leaders) will recognize the grave error soon, and turn this ship around before we reach a point of no return.

I am saying that unmasked healthy people protect vulnerable people from getting infected by being in close proximity with them — Roger Gregoire

Then viruses have to be there in the first place. The man can take them away by sucking them up or attract them to his skin. But the increased volume in the room (of his body) will increase the virus density around the lady. The man can't inhale enough of them to keep up. You can open the door. This will keep the virus density the same. So the man entering has to keep the door open, though initially the virus density around the lady will increase. Increasing the risk. This is obviously not happening with one mosquito.

So. The man enters naked, leaves the door open, and walks to our girlfriend. The number of viruses around the lady increases. Then he starts to suck viruses away from grandma and blow the air to the door. But what's the balance? It's better to let him enter masked, because he might bring in new viruses. Increasing the risk. The risk is not as easily assessed like you do. If he wears a mask he can suck though. Best of both worlds. No emission, only diversion, after initial increase.

I am saying that unmasked healthy people protect vulnerable people from getting infected by being in close proximity with them. — Roger Gregoire

Then viruses have to be there in the first place. — AgentTangerine

If there are no viral particles in the room, then the vulnerable person is already safe. If there are viral particles in the room then the unmasked immune person in the room helps keep these deadly particles away from the vulnerable person.

The safety benefit to the vulnerable person (with the unmasked immune person in the same environment) can be calculated via a simple risk analysis/assessment calculation.

But the increased volume in the room (of his body) will increase the virus density around the lady. — AgentTangerine

No, this is not true. Remember, healthy immune people (in general) don't shed/spread the virus.

The replication (and subsequent emitting) of the virus is related to the health and strength of one's immune system. Those with strong healthy immune systems do not (in general) shed the virus.