slightly slower progress — Book273

Sorry but it's a ridiculous premise. "we will do massive collateral damage, requiring generations to rebuild. Lives will be lost, economies will collapse, and possibly wars may start. But we can SLOW IT DOWN, a little." Seriously, terrible plan. — Book273

All of the healthy people become immune, per our model. All vulnerable people die, per our model. — InPitzotl

It is not that we necessarily need to keep vulnerable people away from certain people, it is that we need to keep vulnerable people away from contaminated environments. — Roger Gregoire

But Roger; the environment surrounding an infected person is contaminated. So we should keep vulnerable people away from infected people. Right? — InPitzotl

Herd immunity is not, as you described, a matter of immune people cleaning the environment up. It's a matter of viruses dying before they infect the next guy. — InPitzotl

Herd immunity itself isn't bad, but herd immunity by means of a process that leaves you with avoidable casualties is. — InPitzotl

Social distance and vaccinations is better. Both minimize infections. — InPitzotl

Totally support exposing everyone. Let the dog out and see how it runs! — Book273

The other is that "healthy" people still die or experience significant complications, and we only have limited resources to deal with that as well. — Echarmion

Sweden. Better infection rates, better mortality rates. No response other than wash your hands and take care. — Book273

Name calling isn't helpful. — Book273

Sweden:  1:942
Finland: 1:8734
Norway:  1:9835
Denmark: 1:3050

USA:    1:804
Canada: 1:2031

Vulnerable people don't die when healthy become immune. Vulnerable people only die if we don't protect them from the virus. — Roger Gregoire

Vulnerable people are protected (via herd immunity) by being surrounded by healthy immune people.

But if you are saying - a 'healthy' infected person contaminates (sheds) lots of virus… - then no, I disagree, because healthy infected people remove more of the virus than they shed. — Roger Gregoire

...which is the same thing as I said. Viruses die (are killed) within healthy people, and replicate and shed within vulnerable people. — Roger Gregoire

Note: vulnerable people don't necessarily die when infected, but they certainly replicate and shed the virus big time. — Roger Gregoire

...what casualties? ...healthy people don't die from herd immunity? ...and vulnerable people are protected? ...so who is dying, ...what causalties? — Roger Gregoire

Social distancing of the healthy population destroys any gains made by the social distancing of the vulnerable. — Roger Gregoire

Vaccinations are great, but if we social distance our vaccinated population then no gains will be made, as this only puts us right back in the mess we are in now. — Roger Gregoire

If vaccinated people don't enter society to give a protective effect (i.e. remove more virus than it sheds) — Roger Gregoire

if you are saying - a 'healthy' infected person contaminates (sheds) lots of virus… - then no, I disagree, because healthy infected people remove more of the virus than they shed. — Roger Gregoire

Thirdly; By not allowing natural selection to occur, through falsely propping up those who would otherwise fall, we weaken the species, thereby allowing an increase in future deaths to yet another virus. — Book273

Healthy people, in general, don't die, or have symptoms when exposed to covid. Look at the actual statistics, and not the news that likes to hype the rare 'exceptions' to the rule. — Roger Gregoire

...what casualties? ...healthy people don't die from [strategic] herd immunity, ...and vulnerable people are protected — Roger Gregoire

The vulnerable people who die as a consequence of viruses put into the environment due to your naively infecting healthy people. — InPitzotl

Healthy people, in general, don't die, or have symptoms when exposed to covid. Look at the actual statistics, and not the news that likes to hype the rare 'exceptions' to the rule. — Roger Gregoire

With 7 Billion people, rare exceptions still happen a lot. — Echarmion

You seem to be playing both sides of the fence here. — Roger Gregoire

1. Do healthy immune people SAVE vulnerable people (via herd immunity)? ...or
2. Do healthy immune people KILL vulnerable people (via viral spread)? — Roger Gregoire

If herd immunity is our ONLY solution to saving vulnerable people, then what are we waiting for? — Roger Gregoire

We can achieve herd immunity through infection, vaccination, and/or the combination of both. — Roger Gregoire

Is it the fear that some of these vulnerable people might die? — Roger Gregoire

Sorry, and no offense, but this just seems to be an excuse for "inaction", or an excuse to just keep hiding (social distancing), and allowing the virus to continue killing our vulnerable. — Roger Gregoire

And furthermore, — Roger Gregoire

This vaccine should empower all healthy immune people (including those previously infected and those recently vaccinated) to immediately rip their masks off and start socializing asap to develop herd immunity to protect the vulnerable, including the vulnerable who are too vulnerable to accept a vaccine. — Roger Gregoire

However, if you would like to open the descriptor of "natural" to include any event which leads to any death, then yes, those who die from collateral damage would be considered, as per your interpretation, as "natural selection", however, once that has been allowed, everything would fall under said category and it would become effectively useless as a descriptor. — Book273

1. Do healthy immune people SAVE vulnerable people (via herd immunity)? — Roger Gregoire

Your question in 1 is a leading question, and the underlying premise of the question is wrong. — InPitzotl

This is misguided. You said it yourself --> Roger Gregoire said - "We can achieve herd immunity through infection, vaccination, and/or the combination of both." — InPitzotl

"There are two paths to herd immunity for COVID-19 — vaccines and infection." — Mayo Clinic

Here, you have insisted on calling social distancing "hiding"... — InPitzotl

Virtually all reputable medical scientists on this planet (even Dr. Fauci) agree that #1 is true. — Roger Gregoire

Immune individuals are unlikely to contribute to(a) disease transmission, disrupting chains of infection, which stops or slows the spread of disease. The greater the proportion of immune individuals in a community, the smaller the probability that non-immune individuals will come into contact with an infectious individual.(b) — Wikipedia article

Do healthy immune people SAVE vulnerable people (via herd immunity)? — Roger Gregoire

the only role healthy people play is not getting infected. — InPitzotl

Yes, what I said is true. And again, virtually all reputable medical scientists on this planet agree with me. — Roger Gregoire

If herd immunity is our ONLY solution to saving vulnerable people, then what are we waiting for? — Roger Gregoire

Is the Mayo Clinic also "misguided"? — Roger Gregoire

Yes, "social distancing" is nothing more than "hiding" from the virus, pure and simple. If you want to pretend that it isn't, ...then that is your choice, ...but I prefer to call it as it is. — Roger Gregoire

Roger, what are you doing here? If your aim is to convince someone you're correct, try logic instead of irrationality. If all you're doing is disagreeing to defend your opinion, you're not going to accomplish much here. — InPitzotl

This is funny that you say this, because this is exactly how I see your responses. Isn't it interesting how we each see the other as the irrational one? — Roger Gregoire

This is irrational (logically flawed), — Roger Gregoire

for we gain herd immunity through infection and/or vaccination, and it is well known there are very many people who are asymptomatic (do not get sick) when infected, and very many people who also do not get sick when vaccinated. — Roger Gregoire

This is irrational (logically flawed), for if this were true, then herd immunity would be easy to achieve. — Roger Gregoire

Imagine having a room full of people (both vulnerable and healthy) and we put all the healthy people in space suits (to guarantee that none of them get infected), then according to your logic, we could achieve herd immunity in the room.

Or better yet, we could create herd immunity on a larger scale by shipping all healthy people in Oklahoma to Arizona (which guarantees no infection of healthy people in Oklahoma), and voila, the 100% vulnerable people remaining in Oklahoma are now instantly and magically immune, and protected from the virus!

In actuality, herd immunity works because healthy immune people remove (stop/kill) more of the virus from the environment than they contribute (shed/spread) into the environment, — Roger Gregoire

...and NOT because they are just standing there "not getting infected" within a crowd (herd) of people.

1. "getting everyone sick will lead to herd immunity" -- InPitzotl

This is irrational (logically flawed), for we gain herd immunity through infection and/or vaccination, and it is well known there are very many people who are asymptomatic (do not get sick) when infected, and very many people who also do not get sick when vaccinated. — Roger Gregoire

If a sore gets infected by bacteria, I don't get sick either. But the bacteria grows. Your distinction is a red herring. — InPitzotl

If a sore gets infected by bacteria, I don't get sick either. But the bacteria grows. Your distinction is a red herring. — InPitzotl

Your response attempts to change the direction of the discussion (by creating a stinky diversionary distraction; aka "red herring") away from Rogers words, so as to prevent us from looking at the actual logic presented by Roger. — Roger Gregoire

If you would like, we could also break down, analyze, and expose the logical error (irrationality) of your statement --> 2. "the only role healthy people play in herd immunity is by not getting infected" -- InPitzotl — Roger Gregoire

You are making a distinction between "sick" and "infected"; per that distinction, "sick" means symptomatic, and infections don't require symptoms. But according to your premises P1-P3, herd immunity is related to infections, not sickness. Apparently, you're trying to make the point that this distinction is irrelevant. And that's the same thing I said; that this distinction is irrelevant. So what is the problem? — InPitzotl

Incidentally, C1 follows from your premises, but C2 does not. Yet C2 has the word "therefore" in it. So how exactly did you reach conclusion C2? — InPitzotl

2. "the only role healthy people play in herd immunity is by not getting infected" -- InPitzotl

No logical error there. What I describe actually works. To demonstrate, I coded it... the code is here: https://pastebin.com/JgC6UkND ...should be run in a terminal with any generic term that does basic escape codes (cygwin, linux, w/e). — InPitzotl

No problem with my logic. — Roger Gregoire

f my premises are true, then sickness is irrelevant. — Roger Gregoire

C2 follows from C1 — Roger Gregoire

C1 says "sickness is irrelevant". — Roger Gregoire

Your coding sidesteps the issue (and "begs-the-question"). The question is how/why herd immunity works in the first place. — Roger Gregoire

If this were not true, then herd immunity would be impossible. — Roger Gregoire

Logically, the only way healthy immune people can provide a protective effect (herd immunity), is if they stop/adsorb/kill the virus around them (in their local environment). — Roger Gregoire

InPitzotl, your coding "begs-the-question", it pre-assumes the conclusion. — Roger Gregoire

You need to show your logic (and don't automatically assume it) that "healthy immune people standing around not getting infected" logically results in "herd immunity; protective effect to the vulnerable". — Roger Gregoire

I'll wait. — Roger Gregoire

So then, what is P2? — Roger Gregoire

P2. Many vaccinated people also don't get sick. — Roger Gregoire

For discussion purposes only, I'll oversimplify. Let's say everyone is either healthy, or vulnerable {line 18}. I'll grant 1 and 2 literally; vulnerable people who get sick die, and healthy people who get sick become immune {line 284}. Unstated, for simplicity, let's presume that everyone who is vaccinated becomes immune {line 174, part of setup}.

But here's how the mechanics work. Everyone starts out uninfected, call that state (A) {line 26}. They can become infected, state (B), if exposed to a carrier {line 298}. A carrier is essentially another person in state (B). Then if the person is healthy, they go to state (C1), immune {line 293}. If they are vulnerable, they go to state (C2), dead {line 287}. So in these terms we want to minimize the number of people in state (C2), death by covid. — InPitzotl

If this were true, then we could simply lock up all healthy immune people in quarantine, and voila, then we would magically achieve herd immunity and save all the vulnerable people. — Roger Gregoire

InPitzotl, your coding/program/model all "beg-the-question", it pre-assumes the conclusion. You need to show your logic (and don't automatically assume it). Show the missing premise P2 that logically connects P1. to C1.

P1. Healthy immune people not getting infected.
P2. (...missing)
C1. Therefore, we get herd immunity; protection for our vulnerable people. — Roger Gregoire

So then, what is P2? How do we get from P1 to C1? — Roger Gregoire

Are you talking about this P2?: "P2. Many vaccinated people also don't get sick." That's your premise, not part of my model. Sick per your definition is irrelevant. — InPitzotl

But here's how the mechanics work. Everyone starts out uninfected, call that state (A) {line 26}. They can become infected, state (B), if exposed to a carrier {line 298}. A carrier is essentially another person in state (B). — InPitzotl

Refer to the running simulation for a demonstration of the protective effect; note that there's none in these runs in all scenarios up to 50% vaccination; at 80% you see some effect; at 95% more.

2. "the only role healthy people play in herd immunity is by not getting infected" -- InPitzotl

If this were true, then we could simply lock up all healthy immune people in quarantine, and voila, then we would magically achieve herd immunity and save all the vulnerable people. — Roger Gregoire

This is absolutely and demonstrably true, so I don't see how you think it supports your view.

If we locked up all the healthy people and left the others exactly where they are geographically, we would indeed have reached herd immunity. The remaining viable hosts would be, on average, too socially isolated to transmit the virus to new non-immune hosts and so the virus (being unable to live outside of a non-immune host) would die. — Isaac