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

Slowing down infections (aka "social distancing") kills more people than it saves:

1. Social distancing vulnerable people saves lives.
2. Social distancing healthy people kills lives.

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

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

False. The empirical data disagrees with this statement.

The USA and UK are the top killers on this planet of their own people (covid deaths per capita) via strict social distancing demands. Countries like Sweden with no social distancing demands have virtually ended covid deaths in their country.

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

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

You are confusing "more social distancing" with "herd immunity". Social distancing aka "breaking vectors" is just the opposite of "herd immunity". Herd immunity requires people to "make vectors" (to get "closer", not get further away).

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.

The only logical explanation for the "protective effect" of herd immunity is the one I illustrated, and which was proved empirically correct by Sweden during the second wave of the virus in their country.

We here in the USA are seemingly too vain to admit we screwed up. We are too vain to see what actually works in other countries and try to implement here. It's as if we would rather kill our own people than admit we screwed up.

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

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

Firstly, you are talking about more "social distancing" when you refer to "breaking vectors". You are not talking about "herd immunity".

Secondly, it is impossible to "social distance" (break vectors/increase barriers) our way out of this mess!
Even if we put everyone on this planet in space suits simultaneously for 2 weeks and one person cheated and didn't wear his and had covid, then when everyone took off their space suit, boom, we would have the pandemic all over again. Remember this whole mess started with just one person on this entire planet being infected.

There is ONLY one way to stop this virus and it is called herd immunity which requires allowing healthy people to be exposed and get infected.

Social distancing prevents the only solution we have.

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

I don't know where you're learning this crap from but please stop going there, it's properly insane. — Kenosha Kid

It is called being rational; using logic and math. Not only is my view rationally sound, but it is also empirically true. The only "insane" part is thinking that social distancing can somehow save us, when in fact it is killing more of us. Both logic and empirical evidence tell us so. Wake up people!

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

False. 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".

But no one acts as a viral vacuum. — Kenosha Kid

False again. If what you say were true, then the protective effects of herd immunity would be impossible. If EVERYONE was a "contributor" and NO ONE was a "remover" of the virus within a given environment, then the virus could only INCREASE, not decrease (...this is assuming that people were still alive and active within the environment).

Herd immunity is when a large enough percentage of the population has got antibodies to the disease that it cannot spread! — counterpunch

Hmmmm. I wonder HOW that (the non-spreading; i.e. protective effect of herd immunity) actually happens? Could it be "magic"? [being facetious here]. Counterpunch, please continue and explain HOW this happens. Just saying "that it happens", doesn't cut it. Please tell us HOW this magic happens.

Kenosha and counterpunch, to help better understand the actual HOW this happens, please re-read my earlier illustration:

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

That is not too smart as it would result in very many deaths. The "smartest" and "quickest" way to attain (the threshold value) of herd immunity is to allow our healthy population to get infected, while social distancing / quarantining our vulnerable population. Healthy people in general don't die from covid, they become immune when infected. (note: actual empirical data tells us - that of the 2,291,000 covid deaths so far, 99.1% of these had at least 1 known underlying condition).

By social distancing everyone (the healthy and the vulnerable), we are in effect creating a slower version of massive deaths much worse than with exposing everyone to the virus at once (as you mention above). Social distancing of everyone only makes it happen slower, that's all. (...it allows the virus to continue to grow and mutate into potentially more deadly variants).

Just compare last year at this time to today. Do we want to keep doing the same thing, so that next year at this time the virus will be 4 times larger and with at least a dozen more mutations?

How is social distancing of everyone working so far? How many millions of lives have we already destroyed with shutdowns and social distancing?

Isn't that the definition of insanity? ...keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result?

This important section, which might add clarity, was not brought over when the OP's were combined:

The NON-TRUTHS of Our Current Covid-19 Policy

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

Non-Truth # 1 - People get infected by other people. This is technically not true.

People get infected by being in contaminated environments (i.e. from viruses in the air or on surfaces that ultimately transfer into one's respiratory system).

Note: People's respiratory systems are not directly connected to each other's, and therefore do not infect each other. The correct view is that people are either "contributors" of the virus into the environment, or they are "removers" of the virus from the environment. One or the other.

Those with healthy immune systems, when infected, attack and kill the virus, thereby "removing" more of the virus from the environment, than they contribute. Those with weak immune systems, when infected, allow the virus to replicate unabated; thereby "contributing" more of the virus into the environment, than they remove.

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

Non-Truth # 2 - Healthy people (including the asymptomatic, previously infected, and recently vaccinated people) when infected, "contribute" more of the virus, back into the environment than they "remove". This is a blatant non-truth.

The Rt value for healthy people is <1 whereas the Rt value for vulnerable people is >1 (note: Rt = rate of transmission; <1 means stops more of the virus than transmits, and >1 means transmits more of the virus than stops). If this non-truth was truth, then the protective effect of herd immunity would be impossible, and herd immunity would then just be a fairy tale.

Logically, the only way healthy immune people can provide a "protective effect" (herd immunity), is if they stop/absorb/kill the virus around them (in their local environment), ...in other words, herd immunity is only possible if healthy people are the "removers" of the virus, for if everyone "contributed" to the virus, then no one could ever provide a "protective effect".

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

Non-Truth # 3 - The protective effect of herd immunity doesn't kick in until we reach the herd immunity threshold. This is another blatant non-truth.

The protective effect is not like a "light switch" that begins protecting vulnerable people when we reach the magical threshold point. The threshold value is just the theoretical percentage needed to stop the virus altogether. The protective effect begins immediately with any addition of (non-masked) healthy people within a group of vulnerable people.

Note: The protective effect of herd immunity is achieved by adding healthy people to a given contaminated environment with vulnerable people so as to reduce the overall "density" of the virus exposure to the individual vulnerable person. 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. And then, the ratio of healthy people to total people within that same environment, multiplied by the initial odds, yields the "protective effect". This is the correct equation for determining the protective effect of herd immunity.

To help illustrate:

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.

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

Non-Truth # 4 - Continued masking and social distancing of our recently vaccinated people will help us end this virus sooner by reaching the herd immunity threshold faster. This again is another blatant non-truth.

We cannot get a "protective effect" by people hiding from the herd (i.e. people that continue to social distance themselves from others in society). Herd immunity requires immune people to integrate (mix) back into the herd (society) so as to create the protective effect.

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

MORAL OF THE STORY: Our current covid policy is wholly irrational, and is based on bad science; science that disregards logic.

The continued masking and social distancing of our healthy population will only allow this virus to continue to grow and mutate unabated. Vaccines are useless if we don't unmask our recently vaccinated, and allow them (along with our healthy population, and those previously infected) to participate in achieving herd immunity.

Firstly, do you believe the concept of "herd immunity" is true? Do you believe there is such a thing as a "protective effect" by mixing healthy people into a group of vulnerable people?

Wearing a mask reduces the probability of you contaminating an area. — Kenosha Kid

Yes, this is especially true if you are an infected vulnerable person who is likely to shed much more of the virus than remove. But then, you would probably be too sick to go out in public environments in the first place.

But masking healthy people who would normally remove more of the virus than they contribute, only makes matters worse. If all we have are only "contributors" of the virus into a given environment, and no "removers", then the environment can only get more contaminated, not less.

If we refuse to vacuum the carpet for fear that some of the dirt will seep back out onto to carpet, then the carpet can only get dirtier, not cleaner, as dirty shoes continue walking across the carpet.

I wholly reserve my right to be unintelligent on occasion. — countetpunch

Lol. Yes, I've noticed! (...and nothing wrong with that on occasion.)

...it certainly isn't based in a scientific understanding of microbiology? — counterpunch

On the contrary. My belief is based on the "rational" logical interpretation of the acquired scientific data (on the actual empirical evidence, and not on the fear mongering media).

Contrary to popular opinion, we don’t get "truths" from science, we get "data" from science. It is the job of rationalist (logician) to make sense and to rationally interpret this data into truths (and falses). Most scientists are not very good logicians (e.g. Dr. Fauci).

Being an expert in one field does not mean one is automatically an expert in another field. Many "medical experts" are experts in medicine, but not in making rational decisions for this country. For example, many medical experts agree with Dr. Fauci's "social distancing of everyone" rationale, and many "medical experts" vehemently disagree with this rationale.

Those who have the better understanding of logical consequences (logicians; rationalists) should use the data we get from our scientist and medical experts to rationally advise/make decisions for our country.

Again, contrary to popular belief, being an expert in science (the collecting/gathering of empirical evidence) does not automatically mean that one is also an expert in making rational decisions based on this evidence.

It seems that our society is slowing moving to the point of idiocracy as depicted in the movie "Idiocracy". Soon it seems that our "medical experts" will be advising all those that live in Alaska to cut off their fingers and toes so as to mitigate the outbreak of frost bite on fingers and toes. It takes a rationalist to see the utter nonsense of this, but medically, this will indeed stop the outbreak of frostbite on fingers and toes. -- this seems to be the world we live in now.

If this was the true logic then people with adequate immune systems wouldn’t require vaccination from any disease that is mild for them. But we know that vaccination serves not only to reduce the intensity of symptoms but also prevent transmission by curbing the maximum viral load. — Benj96

People with healthy immune systems develop antibodies, which in most cases, provides better protection than does vaccination.

Those with healthy immune systems don’t “replicate less of the virus” it is simply that they don’t succumb to severe symptoms of the infection. — Benj96

Not so. Most medical experts and rationalists agree with the following:

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.

2. In general, the less sick (more asymptomatic) one is, the stronger their immune system is to fighting off the infection. And the stronger their immune system is to fighting off the infection, the less the viral replication.

Of course, there are always rare exceptions.

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

No one believes that they catch Covid directly from other people's lungs… — Kenosha Kid

The point of Non-Truth # 1 was to dispel the belief that people infect other people.

For example, we hear the propaganda slogan "Wear your mask to protect others" (or to protect your neighbors grandma, etc). The point is that grandma (and others) only get infected because they went into contaminated areas, and not necessarily because you and I did or did not wear a mask.

This non-sensical propaganda is akin to telling healthy good swimmers to carry a life jacket with them when they go swimming, because vulnerable non-swimmers that jump into the deep end might drown. The emphasis of the propaganda is to blame and hold the healthy responsible for the foolishness of the vulnerable.

It is not that healthy people should wear masks (carry life jackets), it is more that the vulnerable people should stay away from contaminated areas (don't jump into the deep end of the pool!).

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

Roger Roger, let's all of us healthy individuals get out there and vacuum up all those viruses out of the environment and into our lungs, to make it more safe for the less healthy. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. In essence, this is how strategic herd immunity works. Healthy people are like the white blood cells in the body. They kill and remove the infection. If we hold them back, then the infection only grows larger and more deadlier.

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

How do you discern in your mind whether any particular concept that you hold is false or unlikely or likely or true or otherwise plausibly indiscernible.? What metrics do you use? What is the nature of proof? In other words, what is the difference between your opinions and your knowledge? — Tres Bien

Good question, and probably another topic altogether. But in general, and contrary to popular opinion, I believe that science is 'not' the "god of truth"; science is just the god of gathering/acquiring empirical evidence. Logic is the god of truth. For it is logic (the rationalizing of this empirical data) that gives us objective truths (and falses).

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

That is astonishing stupidity. Really top class! — counterpunch

Without any supporting logic/rational, you are only exposing (to all of us) your lack of intelligence. For any unintelligent person can make this type of claim. So why not show us your intelligence and prove me wrong?

Those that resort to casting insults are those that have nothing rational left to argue with.

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

Most of what is breathed in comes right back out. There is the exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide because our metabolism are little campfires. Viruses are not transformed through respiration in a similar manner. Some of them enter the system and the others go right back out. Spreading happens when the virus is close enough to other people (who are breathing) such that the exhalation of a carrier is inhaled by others. — Valentinus

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.

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

InPitzotl, I view you as a troll, a dishonest, disingenuous debater, with no real intent/interest in seeking truth. Therefore, I will limit my responses back to you.

You are in the same category as "counterpunch", you both lack the ability to have civil rational discussion. "Insult" seems to be your preferred method of argument.

This is a rehash of Roger's other thread, with the same, previously debunked lies. It should be merged. — Banno

Banno, please point out the specific "lie" that you are accusing me of. Any "unintelligent" person can claim "this is a debunked lie", but without any supporting evidence/logic, then you are just another unintelligent person casting insults.

This topic is different and very specific about exposing the "non-truths" that we are being fed by "bad science" from our so-called "medical experts".

I challenge you to prove me wrong. (...and just don't say "you're wrong" for no rational reason, ...be intelligent and prove it!). ...I'll wait.

Requiring healthy citizens to get vaccinated against a virus that is not particularly deadly — whilst using a vaccine not particularly efficacious — neatly enables the claim that the virus' ongoing non-virulence results from the vaccine.

The reasoning is circular but familiar. — Natherton

I don't disagree!

...if you can't even honestly answer a simple question then there is no need to continue on with this discussion, ...have a good day.

...wow.

...let me try again, HERE ARE MY SPECIFIC WORDS below. Can you respond to these words with a YES or NO????

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.

InPitzotl, can you grasp this simple concept? YES or NO?

My words:

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

Your interpretation of my words:

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

...you're killin me Smalls! (...shaking my head in disbelief)

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

Firstly, you seem to be fabricating a delusional interpretation of my words. 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). And finally, the truly "ridiculous" part here is you trying to equate 'your' strawman's argument as 'my' argument. So let me try to ask again, (and hopefully get a straightforward yes or no answer this time) --

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.

InPitzotl, can you grasp this simple concept? YES or NO?

For every piece of the pie that Joe eats, is one less piece that John can eat. — Roger Gregoire

InPitzotl, can you grasp this concept? Yes or No?

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

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.

Herd immunity has been natures way of protecting mankind from all these viruses throughout history. But now, we are interfering with mother nature. We are intentionally shielding our healthy population from protecting our vulnerable population. Never in the history of mankind have we did this, and is why we are losing this battle with covid.

If you are trying to falsely equate 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.

***********

For every piece of the pie that Joe eats, is one less piece that John can eat.

For any given environment, every virus that infects healthy people is one less virus that infects vulnerable people.

If healthy people leave the environment, then the ratio of virus to vulnerable INCREASES, thereby increasing (not decreasing!) the likelihood of vulnerable people being infected and dying.

The protective effect of herd immunity requires healthy people mix into the environment, not away from it.

...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

...an irrelevant red herring.

The reason herd immunity works is because it distributes a significant portion of the viral load to the healthy immune (who don't die), and AWAY from the vulnerable (who do die). - if we remove the healthy, then the vulnerable incur the wrath of the entire viral load by themselves, resulting in massive deaths, as we are seeing happening now in this country.

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

Keywords: sufficient proportion of a population.

Your theory is just the opposite. Your theory is based on creating an insufficient proportion! You falsely think that if you move all healthy immune people AWAY from vulnerable, that somehow this gives more protection to the vulnerable.

To create herd immunity, you need to move healthy people into a vulnerable population, not away from it!

The reason herd immunity works is because it distributes a significant portion of the viral load to the healthy immune (who don't die), and AWAY from the vulnerable (who do die). - if we remove the healthy, then the vulnerable incur the wrath of the entire viral load by themselves, resulting in massive deaths, as we are seeing happening now in this country.

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

That sounds like what I'm saying. — InPitzotl

Far from it. Removing or isolating healthy immune people away from the population only increases the deaths of vulnerable people.

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

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

Nonsense. NEVER in the history of mankind have we ever intentionally socially distanced our healthy immune people anywhere near the scale we are doing now. It is quite reasonable to social distance our vulnerable, but social distancing our healthy people, creates a deadly reverse (anti-protective) effect.

If social distancing of our healthy population is such a "good thing", then why is it not working? Why does the reverse seem to be happening? Why do we now have many more deaths? Why do we now have at least 3 more mutations of the virus to deal with? I don't know how much more of this "good thing" we can take.

Next year, if we continue this foolishness, each of the current mutations will have mutated into more and new mutations, deaths will be at least 2X what they are now, and we will be past the point where we can stop this thing. The party for mankind will be over. It would then just be a matter a time (within 5-10 years) that humans will be the next extinct creature on this planet.

Isn't that the definition of insanity? ...keep doing the same thing and expect a different result?

Without healthy people mixing in with vulnerable people there can be no protective effect whatsoever. — Roger Gregoire

This is a contradiction. — InPitzotl

There is no contradiction. And 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.

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

Might I remind you, you are against healthy people social distancing because you want them to get infected. — InPitzotl

Correct. Social distancing of healthy immune people prevents the protective effect to the vulnerable.

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

That implies you don't think they'll get infected if they do. — InPitzotl

To the contrary. Remember: nothing bad happens to healthy immune people when they get infected, but something bad certainly happens to vulnerable people when they get infected. So for every infection of a healthy immune person, means one less potential infection of a vulnerable person - hence the 'protective' effect.

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

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".

But one last request before we depart. How about we make a deal? If next year at this time our country is doing better by continuing the same irrational policy of social distancing of our healthy population, then I will publicly state "InPitzotl was right, and I was wrong". But if the contrary happens and things are much much worse then you will reciprocate likewise. ...deal?

But of course, next year at this time, we will be past the point-of-no-return (that is if we don't come to our senses very soon). It will then only be a matter of a few years before all human life goes extinct.

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

Not only does this contradict basic math and logic, but it also doesn't align with current science. Without healthy people mixing in with vulnerable people there can be no protective effect whatsoever. Once we reach a minimum mix ratio of 60%/40% (healthy to vulnerable) will we then (theoretically) stop the virus completely. This is called the herd immunity threshold which absolutely requires "healthy people".

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

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

It's implementing your opinion. - InPitzotl, didn't you write this program? If so, then it is based on your view; your opinion; your interpretation of how herd immunity works. 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.

...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

Book, you are spot on. I am just trying to play nice. "Well intentioned" is just my (nicer; hidden) way of saying exactly what you said.

I think Dr. Fauci (Dr. Death) and his blind followers are too prideful and stuck in their ways to consider what many thousands of other medical experts, scientists, and rationalists are saying. They are too prideful to admit they screwed up, even at the added expense and cost of losing many more American lives. Their refusal to allow a full rational debate on the subject, as if they are the God of all truth, has already and will continue to result in much more massive death counts to our country. They seemingly care more about maintaining their God-like status, than in saving people.

And unfortunately we now live in a "cancel culture" society, where those that object to the current irrational government propaganda are being silenced (canceled) by labeling them as "misinformed quacks". It almost seems that the nazi party has taken over this country.

The herd immunity threshold is based on having a minimum mix of healthy people to vulnerable people, typically thought to be around 60%/40% ratio. If we get rid of (or remove) the healthy people from this mix, then we end up with a 0%/100% ratio of all vulnerable people, which only increases the virus spread and deaths, not decreases the deaths!

This means that healthy people (those that can't get sick, or previously infected, or recently vaccinated) are necessary to achieve the protective effect of herd immunity.

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?

If this were so, and according to your program, there would be no protective difference between a covid contaminated room filled with 50 vulnerable and 50 healthy people, and the same contaminated room filled with just 50 vulnerable people (and 0 healthy people).

But according to the math, the odds of vulnerable people dying (or getting infected) would double if the 50 healthy people walked out of the room, or put on covid proof gunny sacks.

Do you see what I am getting at? - The math does not match your program. - You are not accounting for the true 'protective' effect of healthy people 'within' the environment.

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

The math also tells us that the social distancing of our healthy population is counter productive. It will cause more deaths than it will save. But yet, we foolishly require our healthy population to "hide", thinking that this will somehow save more lives.

It is time we start thinking rationally. It is time to start following logic and math, and not the "bad science" being perpetrated by our well intentioned public officials.

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

Okay, so let me try asking a different way. How does healthy people factor into protecting vulnerable people in your model?

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

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

You do realize that healthy people (those that can't get sick, or previously infected, or recently vaccinated) are necessary to achieve herd immunity, right?

So again, how do these "necessary" people factor in achieving herd immunity in your program/model? Can you show the math equation (similar to what I did earlier) that accounts for these healthy people in your program/model?

Logic always trumps science. If something is logically impossible then all the science in the world cannot make the impossible, somehow possible. Closing your eyes to logic (and math) in favor of science is the problem.

Bad science = science that disregards logic.

I'll say it again -- if healthy immune people did not "remove" more of the virus from the environment than they "add", then 'herd immunity' would be logically impossible. There would be no such thing as 'herd immunity'. In other words, if all people were only "adders" (contributors) of the virus, and none were "removers" of the virus, then healthy people could never give a 'protective effect', but instead, only a 'deadly effect'.

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

Also, I don't know if you caught this statement in the article that you linked --- "Our study shows that isolation practices should be commenced with the start of first symptoms, which can include mild and atypical symptoms, preceding typical symptoms of COVID-19 such as cough and fever." --- ...implying that social distancing is not necessary until the onset of symptoms. ...which further implies that those with healthy immune systems that don't have symptoms (because their immune system kills the virus!) don't necessarily need to practice social distancing.

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

You did say this, ...right? --- "the only role healthy people play in herd immunity is by not getting infected". So then how do "healthy people not getting infected" create herd immunity in your program/model???

As can be seen, logically and mathematically, we are killing many, many more people by implementing social distancing on our healthy population.

If we don't wake up soon, and stop adhering to bad science, it will be too late. We will be outnumbered by the virus, and they will win the battle of natural selection (survival of the fittest).

Note: vaccines are totally useless, if we continue to socially distance our vaccinated population.

Our only real hope, is if enough healthy people disobey current social distancing mandates. They take off their masks and return to normal full socialization. Otherwise, the party's over. Humans will become extinct within 5-10 years on this planet.

Our so called "medical experts" seemingly are too proudful to admit they screwed up. Oh well, that's life I guess.

Also, if I understand your program/model correctly, the "protective effect" shown on your program is a function of "removing" (not "adding") healthy people from the environment (or preventing them from getting infected). Not only is this contrary to science, but mathematically this kills 4 times many more people.

INPITZOTL'S PROGRAM: If we keep healthy people from getting infected then we will reach herd immunity and protect and save the vulnerable people.

Okay, let's run InPitzotl's program -- let's put the 50 healthy people in mosquito proof gunny sacks, to prevent them from getting bit. So now the odds of a vulnerable person dying from a mosquito bite is 20% (versus 5%). (10 mosquitos / 50 total exposed people) = 20%, and (50 vulnerable people / 50 total exposed people) = 100%, and so 20% * 100% = 20%, and so 20% * 50 vulnerable people = 10 dead people (versus 2.5).

BUSTED: InPitzotl KILLS 4 times more people.

I suspect there are error(s) and/or false assumptions in your program, as the math clearly shows the deadly consequence of removing/isolating healthy people from a given environment.

But you are not accounting for the protective effect of this immune person (removing more of the virus than he creates).

And immune people never clean the environment. — InPitzotl

...any virus that infects an immune person is a dead virus, ...meaning one less virus in the environment, ...meaning that immune people remove more virus than they create, ...meaning immune people "clean" the environment.

So here is at least one error in your programming.

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

Then there would be no such thing as "herd immunity"!

I suspect it more likely that your program is not using the true volumetric ("density") calculations, or contains some false assumptions.

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

Correct. If we hide (socially distance) healthy people in mosquito proof gunny sacks then there will be more vulnerable deaths, (as per the equations).

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

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

Yes, when you isolate or remove healthy people, then more vulnerable people die.

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

But again, you're saying that we need to stop isolating healthy people so that they become infected. — InPitzotl

Correct. The more healthy people in a contaminated environment, the more protection (less deaths) to the vulnerable. Every infection to a healthy person (whose immune system kills said infection) means less infection (and deaths) to vulnerable people.

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

Isaac, look at the math and the logic. Please point out the specific error that you see.

Again, if healthy immune people didn't remove more of the virus than they contribute, then herd immunity would be logically and theoretically impossible.

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

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.

Oops, I've got "Nv" representing two different things. Corrected equation:

P0=Nv/Np, where P0 is initial probability, Nv is number of viruses, Np number of people.
D=P0 * (Ns / Np) * Ns where D is the number of dead people, and Ns the number of vulnerable people.

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

E is just the protective effect, it doesn't tell you how many (or what %) of people are saved, or have died.
If you want to know how many dead (assuming all infected people die) in this example, then use this equation:

P0=Nv/Np, where P0 is initial probability, Nv is number of viruses, Np number of people.
D=P0 * (Ns / Np) * Ns where D is the number of dead people, and Ns the number of vulnerable people.

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

Yes, of course. Preventing (or social distancing) healthy people from away from contaminated environments allows the contaminated environment to only become more contaminated.

Remember: Healthy immune people are the "removers" (attacker/killers) of the virus from the environment. Whereas vulnerable people are the "contributers" (replicaters/shedders) of virus back into the environment.

In other words, the immune system of healthy people "attack and kill" the virus, where the immune system of vulnerable people are less responsive, allowing unabated viral replications (which manifest into physical symptoms) and shed back into the environment.

Keeping healthy people away from contaminated environments allows these contaminated environments to only become more contaminated. If you keep the vacuum cleaner away from the rug, the rug can only get dirtier, ...not cleaner.

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

If so, why aren't you considering social distancing for the vulnerable? — InPitzot

Huh? Vulnerable people need to social distance much more than they currently are. We need to minimize the contamination in the environment. And the healthy need to be set free to clean up the contamination. Right now the contamination is increasing at a faster rate than it is being removed (because we are social distancing our healthy people!). Soon (if not already here) the increase will be greater than our ability to decrease it (aka the-point-of-no-return).

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

No. And again, the initial odds of infection are n viruses/n people in a given environment. (...if you wish to multiply this value by a 90% probability factor, then it does not matter as it is moot to the overall %).

Consider the following scenario:

Imagine 100 people are inside a room with 10 airborne virus. Further imagine that 50 of these people are healthy (asymptomatic; being infected by the virus does not bother them) and 50 people are vulnerable, whereas a virus infection would kill them. So the odds of a vulnerable person dying from the virus in this situation is 5%. (10 virus / 100 total people) = 10%, and (50 vulnerable people / 100 total people) = 50%, and so 10% * 50% = 5%, and so 5% * 50 vulnerable people = 2.5 dead people.

THE CORRECTED CALCULATIONS:

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. 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. 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.

Or if we want to know the infection rate to vulnerable people then: Virus/Total People (within a given environment) * Vulnerable People/Total People (within the same environment) = % of infection to vulnerable people.

Herd immunity is achieved by adding healthy people to a given contaminated environment with vulnerable people so as to reduce the "density" of the virus exposure to the individual vulnerable person. To help illustrate my point:

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 die if bitten by a mosquito. So the odds of a vulnerable person dying from a mosquito bite is 5% (10 mosquitos / 100 total people) = 10%, and (50 vulnerable people / 100 total people) = 50%, and so 10% * 50% = 5%, and so 5% * 50 vulnerable people = 2.5 dead people.

ISAAC'S THEORY: If we remove the healthy people from the environment, then we will reach herd immunity and protect and save the vulnerable people.

Okay, let's try Isaac's theory -- let's remove the 50 healthy people from the room. So the odds of a vulnerable person dying from a mosquito bite is 20%. (10 mosquitos / 50 total people) = 20%, and (50 vulnerable people / 50 total people) = 100%, and so 20% * 100% = 20%, and so 20% * 50 vulnerable people = 10 dead people.

BUSTED: Isaac KILLS 4 times more people.

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

INPITZOTL'S THEORY: If we keep healthy people from getting infected then we will reach herd immunity and protect and save the vulnerable people.

Okay, let's try InPitzotl's theory -- let's put the 50 healthy people in mosquito proof gunny sacks, to prevent them from getting bit. So the odds of a vulnerable person dying from a mosquito bite is 20%. (10 mosquitos / 50 total exposed people) = 20%, and (50 vulnerable people / 50 total exposed people) = 100%, and so 20% * 100% = 20%, and so 20% * 50 vulnerable people = 10 dead people.

BUSTED: InPitzotl KILLS 4 times more people.

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

ROGER'S THEORY #1: If we add more healthy people (including those who were previously infected and those who were recently vaccinated) to contaminated environments then we will reach herd immunity and protect and save the vulnerable people.

Okay, let's try Roger's theory #1 -- let's add 100 more healthy people into the room. So the odds of a vulnerable person dying from a mosquito bite is 1.25%. (10 mosquitos / 200 total people) = 5%, and (50 vulnerable people / 200 total people) = 25%, and so 5% * 25% = 1.25%, and so 1.25% * 50 vulnerable people = 0.6 dead people.

SUCCESS: Roger #1 SAVES 4 times more people.

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

ROGER'S THEORY #2: 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.

Okay, let's try Roger's theory #2 -- let's have the 50 healthy people strip down naked to expose 10 times more surface area to be bitten by the mosquitos, and then put the excess clothing around the vulnerable people to give them an extra layer of protection. So the odds of a vulnerable person dying from a mosquito bite is ~0%. (10 mosquitos / 100 total people) = 10%, and (0 vulnerable people / 50 total exposed people) = 0%, and so 10% * 0% = ~0%, and so 0% * 50 vulnerable people = 0.0 dead people.

SUCCESS: Roger #2 SAVES virtually ALL the vulnerable people.