You suggest that 'if literally everyone stayed at home for two weeks the virus would die out'. It is a pity that it is not that simple. I am sure that people would do this if that was the case, although I don't see how hospitals could close. I think that you are overlooking the fact that the virus is a living entity and cannot be controlled in any easy way.

If literally everyone stayed in their house for two weeks, the virus would die out. Obviously, this isn't very practical. So we're left with less effective measures. — Echarmion

Hi Echarmion, I would agree by going even further by saying it is more futile than that. In a theoretical sense, if we could put everyone (and every animal) simultaneously on this planet in a space suit (with no access to the outside) for two solid weeks, then social distancing could (in a theoretical sense) end this virus. But of course, without food or water, they would all be dead anyways. And if one person cheated and was infected, then this whole mess would balloon up all over again. Remember, all this started with one person on this planet; with just singular infection (in Wuhan China).

For example, you conspicuously ignored all the objective points raised. — Echarmion

"Objective points"? ...which ones?

A virus is barely a living thing. Without new hosts, it'd die out. But as I said, it's basically impossible to do because someone needs to keep the lights on (literally as well as figuratively).

Remember, all this started with one person on this planet; with just singular infection (in Wuhan China). — Roger Gregoire

And yet it appears that China, along with some other countries, does have the virus under control, so apparently it is possible.

Remember, all this started with one person on this planet; with just a singular infection (in Wuhan China). — Roger Gregoire

And yet it appears that China, along with some other countries, does have the virus under control, so apparently it is possible. — Echarmion

If one group of people stay in the shade, then that group of people will have their sunburns under control. But when they eventually go out and play on the beach of life, guess what? ...sunburns will come back!

Unless we can get everybody on this planet in a spacesuit at the same time, for 2 solid weeks, the virus will continue. It is impossible to social distance our way out of this mess. Herd immunity, and specifically "strategic herd immunity" is the ONLY solution we have. The longer we wait to implement it, the sooner we reach the point of no return, when the virus wins the battle of natural selection.

Note: "strategic herd immunity" means allowing the healthy population (along with the recently immunized) to rip off their masks and start mass socializing asap. Allowing the virus to continue to fester and mutate is not a winnable solution. We can never develop vaccines fast enough to keep up with the latest mutations.

Herd immunity, and specifically "strategic herd immunity" is the ONLY solution we have. — Roger Gregoire

Everyone is aiming for eventual herd immunity. You just somehow seem to be of the opinion that it is better to have a few million people die to the virus quickly then much fewer people over a longer period of time.

Everyone is aiming for eventual herd immunity. You just somehow seem to be of the opinion that it is better to have a few million people die to the virus quickly then much fewer people over a longer period of time. — Echarmion

Who are these "few million people"?

Healthy people (those with strong immune systems with no underlying conditions that are susceptible to the ill effects of covid) in virtually all cases don't die from covid.- Look at the scientific empirical evidence/data. And stop listening the "fear mongering" media.

Who are these "few million people"? Healthy people (those with strong immune systems with no underlying conditions that are susceptible to the ill effects of covid) in virtually all cases don't die from covid.- Look at the scientific empirical evidence/data. And stop listening the the "fear mongering" media. — Roger Gregoire

People without strong immune systems are still people, are they not?

People without strong immune systems are still people, are they not? — Echarmion

I think you meant to say "with" and not "without". And yes, every life is important. The goal is to save as many lives as possible.

Of all 2,077,038 people that have died of covid on this planet so far, 99.1% of them had at least one underlying condition. This is published science data, available to everybody. And contrary to the fear mongering news, healthy people in general don't die of covid, but yet we are preventing these healthy people from acquiring herd immunity that could ultimately save many millions more from dying. Go figure.

And contrary to the fear mongering news, healthy people in general don't die of covid, but yet we are preventing these healthy people from acquiring herd immunity that could ultimately save many millions more from dying. Go figure. — Roger Gregoire

Acquiring herd immunity by being infected by the actual virus (as opposed to a vaccine) does not save people from dying. I have no idea how you think this works, but the general rule is that the more people that are infected, the more will die. That herd immunity may ultimately result doesn't mean less people died.

Acquiring herd immunity by being infected by the actual virus (as opposed to a vaccine) does not save people from dying. — Echarmion

This is not correct. We can achieve herd immunity through infection, vaccination, and/or the combination of both.

...the general rule is that the more people that are infected, the more will die. — Echarmion

Not so.
1. Vulnerable people die from covid
2. Healthy people gain immunity from covid.
3. Herd immunity: the more healthy immune people out in society creates a greater protective effect to the vulnerable (i.e. the less deaths of vulnerable people).

1. Vulnerable people die from covid
2. Healthy people gain immunity from covid.
3. Herd immunity: the more healthy immune people out in society creates a greater protective effect to the vulnerable (i.e. the less deaths of vulnerable people). — Roger Gregoire

So here I've underlined something... presumably this is the goal.

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

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

So let's talk about vulnerable, living people; by the stated goal these are who we're protecting. They are in state (A). If said people get to state (B), chalk it up in the lost column. That having been said, vulnerable people get to state (B) by being exposed to carriers... other people in state (B). It doesn't matter if the carrier is healthy or vulnerable; infection is infection is infection.

Now, we've granted that healthy carriers eventually become immune; (B->C1). But by comparison, vulnerable carriers eventually die; (B->C2). In either case, the carrier state is transitory. But the carrier state is the sole risk to the vulnerable; the only way for (C2) to happen is for vulnerable people to get infected, (A->B), and that only happens via exposure to a carrier in state (B). So I cannot emphasize this enough, but if your goal is to minimize death by covid (C2), that is entirely equivalent to minimizing exposure to carriers (exposure to people in state B).

This is not correct. We can achieve herd immunity through infection, vaccination, and/or the combination of both. — Roger Gregoire

But that's a false comparison. A healthy person can only lead to a vulnerable person dying by becoming a vector, and the only way that happens is by infection; A->B->C1. That the person winds up immune is inconsequential; the entire risk is that person being in state B for any time at all. By contrast, vaccination takes a healthy person from state A directly to C1, bypassing state B. Since the only possible risk factor is being in state B, and that only happens via infection, you're comparing the only possible way that a healthy person could cause another to die to a process that makes that impossible.

Not quite.
1. Vulnerable people die from covid
2. Healthy people gain immunity from covid.
3. Herd immunity: the more healthy immune people out in society creates a greater protective effect to the vulnerable (i.e. the less deaths of vulnerable people). — Roger Gregoire

Significant herd protection requires probably at least 60% of the population to be immune. I trust you can make your own calculation, based on current death rates, as to what it would mean to get there.

Significant herd protection requires probably at least 60% of the population to be immune. I trust you can make your own calculation, based on current death rates, as to what it would mean to get there. — Echarmion

You are falsely confusing the "threshold value" as the starting point of protection. Herd immunity is not like a light switch that starts protecting when we reach this value. The 'threshold value' is just the theoretical point where the virus stops spreading altogether. We don't have to wait til we get 60% to get protection. One healthy person by himself provides some level of protection. And the more, the merrier.

For example, imagine a very deep swimming pool that can hold up to 100 people. If 60 healthy good swimmers were equally scattered in the pool, then it is guaranteed that if a vulnerable non-swimmer fell in, that there would always be a healthy swimmer close enough to prevent the vulnerable non-swimmer from drowning. Herd immunity threshold in this case is 60%

Now imagine that authorities tell everyone (both healthy and vulnerable) to get out of the pool for fear that a non-swimmer might drown if he falls in. So now when a non-swimmer accidentally falls in, there is no one there to save him; he has 0% chance of survival. And if there were 1 healthy swimmer in the pool when this poor non-swimmer fell in then there would be a chance that this non-swimmer could have been saved. And if there were 2 healthy swimmers in this pool, then this doubles the chance the non-swimmer could be saved, and the more healthy swimmers in the pool the more likely the non-swimmer could be saved, until we reach 60 healthy swimmers, then we have 100% (theoretical) certainty that no non-swimmer could ever drown.

You are falsely confusing the "threshold value" as the starting point of protection. Herd immunity is not like a light switch that starts protecting when we reach this value. The 'threshold value' is just the theoretical point where the virus stops spreading altogether. We don't have to wait til we get 60% to get protection. One healthy person by himself provides some level of protection. And the more, the merrier. — Roger Gregoire

Yes, the R-rate goes down as more and more people get immune. Because infections aren't instantly over though, there is a significant time lag, so the curve is logarithmic. You'll only really start seeing effects close to the threshold unless you reduce R in other ways as well - like by social distancing.

And by "healthy" I assume you mean "immune".

For example, imagine a very deep swimming pool that can hold up to 100 people. If 60 healthy good swimmers were equally scattered in the pool, then it is guaranteed that if a vulnerable non-swimmer fell in, that there would always be a healthy swimmer close enough to prevent the vulnerable non-swimmer from drowning. — Roger Gregoire

That's not at all how this works. Immune people don't magically protect vulnerable people. They just make it harder for the virus to spread, which incidentally also means it's less likely to spread to vulnerable people.

Now imagine that authorities tell everyone (both healthy and vulnerable) to get out of the pool for fear that a non-swimmer might drown if he falls in. So now when a non-swimmer accidentally falls in, there is no one there to save him; he has 0% chance of survival. And if there were 1 healthy swimmer in the pool when this poor non-swimmer fell in then there would be a chance that this non-swimmer could have been saved. And if there were 2 healthy swimmers in this pool, then this doubles the chance the non-swimmer could be saved, and the more healthy swimmers in the pool the more likely the non-swimmer could be saved, until we reach 60 healthy swimmers, then we have 100% (theoretical) certainty that no non-swimmer could ever drown. — Roger Gregoire

Again, that's not how any of this works. The virus remains just as deadly even if herd Immunity is reached. "Herd immunity" is just a name. It doesn't actually mean everyone is immune. In fact, people still contract and die from diseases for which we have statistical herd immunity, because you can still contract them if you're not yourself immune and are unlucky.

For discussion purposes only, I'll oversimplify. Let's say everyone is either healthy, or vulnerable. — InPitzotl

Okay, and to follow along and translate using the OP analogy --- all cars have good tread (strong immune systems; healthy) or bald tires (weak immune systems; vulnerable).

********

I'll grant 1 and 2 literally; vulnerable people who get sick die, and healthy people who get sick become immune. Unstated, for simplicity, let's presume that everyone who is vaccinated becomes immune. — InPitzotl

1. Cars with bald tires, get punctured (die) when encountering tacks on the highway (covid in society).
2. Cars with good tire tread crush tacks (kill covid virus) and get stronger when on the highway (out in society).
3. Cars that have their tires retreaded (vaccinated) can also crush tacks that they encounter on the highway.

********

But here's how the mechanics work. Everyone starts out uninfected, call that state (A). They can become infected, state (B), if exposed to a carrier. — InPitzotl

State A - All cars start with no tacks (uninfected) in their tires.
State B - All cars can be infected with tacks, if exposed to tacks on the highway.

********

A carrier is essentially another person in state (B). — InPitzotl

Now here is where we reach the disconnect in your argument. Technically people don't get the virus directly from another person (unless maybe they were french kissing and they swap spit), they get the virus from being in a contaminated environment, as illustrated in the analogy as being the tacks on the highway.

For example, a grocery store has 100's of people walking around exhaling moisturized air through ineffective masks. The virus emitted from some of these people can linger and mix in the surrounding air for up to one hour, and upon landing, can live on cardboard cereal boxes (and other food items) for up to 7 days. Transmission can also be made from touching one's mouth, nose, or eyes, and then picking up a food item to read its nutrition information, and another person comes along and touches the same food item and then rubs their eye, etc etc. Bottom-line, the covid virus is all over the place, much like tacks on a highway.

- Some people are 'contributors' (shedder/spreaders) of the virus, and some people are 'removers' of the virus (healthy immune systems attack and kill the virus when it invades the body of healthy immune people). Some people shed more than they remove (those with bald tires), and some people remove more than they shed (those with healthy strong tread). We need those with bald tires to stay in the garage, while those with strong tread run freely all over the highway killing/removing the tacks/virus.

Keeping healthy people "socially distanced" is as irrational as keeping lifeguards away from the swimming pool, or keeping the fire extinguisher away from the fire.

Bottom-line -- I think we both agree that the more healthy immune people out there in society the more protective effect we get, and the safer are our vulnerable people.

I'm just still confused how you think exposing more people to the virus somehow leads to less deaths overall.

I'm just still confused how you think exposing more people to the virus somehow leads to less deaths overall. — Echarmion

It is the healthy people that we "expose" to the virus, NOT the vulnerable. This is commonly referred to as "strategic herd immunity". And from an overly simplistic view, the logic goes like this:

P1. Vulnerable people die when exposed to covid.
P2. Healthy people gain immunity when exposed to covid.
P3. The more healthy immune people out in society, the greater the protective effect to the vulnerable.
C1. Therefore, exposing more "healthy" people to the virus results in less deaths of vulnerable people.

And another way to look at it:
The more life guards (healthy swimmers) in the pool, the less drownings of the non-swimmers.

Will Continued Social Distancing Ultimately Destroy All Human Life on this Planet?

Of course it will. reproduction demands a certain intimacy, and without reproduction, human life will of course come to an end. But the bad news is that we are not all total wankers, and enough of us will flout the rules to keep the population growing. — unenlightened

There appears to be something significantly wrong if the ones who go against the rules of morality are the ones who populate the planet. But I guess if birth control hasn't been extremely efficient, that's probably already happened every time there's a sexual revolution. So, maybe there's nothing to worry about anyway.

It is the healthy people that we "expose" to the virus, NOT the vulnerable. This is commonly referred to as "strategic herd immunity". And from an overly simplistic view, the logic goes like this: — Roger Gregoire

Exposing healthy people automatically also exposes vulnerable people. That's the problem. There is no way to neatly separate society into those that will suffer serious harm from an infection and those who don't, not least because we don't yet know all the reasons why CoViD 19 kills or disables people.

Technically people don't get the virus directly from another person (unless maybe they were french kissing and they swap spit), they get the virus from being in a contaminated environment, as illustrated in the analogy as being the tacks on the highway. — Roger Gregoire

But that's irrelevant. The only way your contaminated environment can get contaminated is by putting viruses into that environment, and that requires the viruses to exist. Viruses are only made by virus factories, and whereas viruses don't reproduce on their own, the only type of virus factory is a carrier. Whether Fred swapped spit or got infected from a contaminated environment is irrelevant.

2. Cars with good tire tread crush tacks (kill covid virus) and get stronger when on the highway (out in society). — Roger Gregoire

A C1 person isn't "stronger", they're just immune to this specific virus. Immunity of this type works by a lock and key mechanism; an immune system recognizes a specific threat it was formerly exposed to, and can attack that threat. Consider Joe, a local, who is immune to hundreds of local diseases. And consider John, a regular traveller, who is immune to thousands of tropical diseases. Joe is in state C1, because he was previously exposed and recovered. John is in state A, because he just happened to avoid this virus. Then presumably John is "stronger" than Joe, because his immune has thousands of keys, but that does not offer him any advantage against this virus. Joe is "weaker"; his immune system only has hundreds of keys, but one of those keys fits this virus's lock. But John can still get infected; Joe cannot. So it's not about "stronger" and "weaker"; it is simply about having or not having this key.

State B - All cars can be infected with tacks, if exposed to tacks on the highway. — Roger Gregoire

Your analogy is horrible. Imagine that I have viruses everywhere on my feet and hands, and all over my clothes; i.e., my car has tacks all over it. I take off my clothes and wash them, wash my hands and feet, and in this scenario just happen to not get infected. Then I'm never in state B. The fact that the virus was all over my body is irrelevant; since I'm never infected by them, those viruses may as well be in China.

So, no, that's not a good image of what State B is at all. State B is infection; infection is when the tacks convert your car into a tack factory; infected cars produce tacks by the truckload, and leak them everywhere they go. Immune cars are those that have keys in them to disable the tacks lock. And your car being a tack factory requires that none of the keys inside the car fits the lock that is the tack. And just to be crystal clear, the degree to which talking about tack-locks converting cars without the fitting tack-key into tack factories that leak out the tacks sounds like a silly mental image, is precisely the degree to which your analogy is misleading.

Exposing healthy people automatically also exposes vulnerable people. — Echarmion

Not so. This is the Mistake #2 (referred to in the OP analogy). Firstly, vulnerable people catch the virus by exposing themselves to contaminated environments and surfaces (and not necessarily 'directly' from other people). And depending on one's immune system, people are either 'Contributors' to the contamination or they are 'Removers' of the contamination.

In other words, once a virus infects a host, it begins to replicate itself. Those with healthy immune systems attack and kill these replications. Those with weak immune systems are unable to attack and kill these replications. The extent of the replications typically manifest itself as variations in physical symptoms.

For the most part, people with healthy immune systems don't replicate and shed the virus, ...they attack and kill it!

1. The healthier the immune system, the more it kills the virus, and the less it spreads it (as there is naturally less (or none) to spread). Healthy people are the 'Removers' of virus contamination.

2. The weaker the immune system, the less it kills the virus, and the more it spreads (as the virus replicates itself it becomes easier and more of it to spread). Vulnerable people are the 'Contributors' of virus contamination.

We are being led to falsely believe (and irrationally fear) that healthy people shed the virus on par with vulnerable people. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fear of catching the virus from a healthy person is precisely what is allowing the virus to grow larger and kill MORE people.

Our refusal to use a fire extinguisher, for fear that it might add to the fire, only makes the fire grow larger.

Our refusal to let good swimmers in the pool for fear that they may accidentally drown non-swimmers, only increases the number of non-swimmer drownings.

And again:
P1. Vulnerable people die when exposed to covid.
P2. Healthy people gain immunity when exposed to covid.
P3. The more healthy immune people out in society, the greater the protective effect to the vulnerable.
C1. Therefore, exposing more "healthy" people to the virus results in less deaths of vulnerable people.

The only way your contaminated environment can get contaminated is by putting viruses into that environment, and that requires the viruses to exist. Viruses are only made by virus factories, and whereas viruses don't reproduce on their own, the only type of virus factory is a carrier. — InPitzotl

Correct. People either contribute to the contamination or they help remove the contamination. Those that are immune (those with healthy immune systems attack and kill the virus and its replications) do not contribute to the contamination (they remove more than they add). Without these people (removers of the virus) there could be no 'herd immunity' to protect the vulnerable.

**********

Imagine that I have viruses everywhere on my feet and hands, and all over my clothes; i.e., my car has tacks all over it. I take off my clothes and wash them, wash my hands and feet, and in this scenario just happen to not get infected. Then I'm never in state B. The fact that the virus was all over my body is irrelevant; since I'm never infected by them, those viruses may as well be in China. — InPitzotl

The car analogy fits perfect. You may have the virus all over your clothes and body (as with tacks all over the good hard section of tire tread), but once the virus finds a host, i.e. gets into your respiratory system (as within the soft bald section of the tire) then replication begins.

**********

And just to be crystal clear, the degree that talking about tack-locks converting cars without the fitting tack-key converts tack-lock-infested cars into tack factories that leak out the tacks sounds like a silly mental image, is precisely the degree to which your analogy is misleading. — InPitzotl

So then, do you also agree that vulnerable people shed more than immune people? And do you also agree that relatively speaking, vulnerable people are 'Contributors' and immune people are 'Removers'?

And just so I understand your view, do you also disagree with this oversimplified logic:

P1. Vulnerable people die when exposed to covid.
P2. Healthy people gain immunity when exposed to covid.
P3. The more healthy immune people out in society, the greater the protective effect to the vulnerable.
C1. Therefore, exposing more "healthy" people to the virus results in less deaths of vulnerable people.

The car analogy fits perfect. You may have the virus all over your body (as with tacks all over the good tread of tires), but once the virus finds a host, i.e. gets into your respiratory system (within the soft bald section of the tire) then replication begins. — Roger Gregoire

No, it fails. In your car universe, a car would be in state B if and only if the tacks converted the car into a tack factory. But your story claims that state B is simply having tacks get stuck in tires. A person infected by a virus, by definition, is a person whose living cells the virus usurped into reproduction.

So then do you agree that vulnerable people shed more than immune people? ...right? — Roger Gregoire

Sure, but immune people shed about as much as scotch tape with viruses stuck on it, viruses that get buried for 7 days under mounds of paper, or viruses trapped in soap bubbles that will disintegrate in 10 seconds.

You're making this sound like healthy people clean up the environment, but it doesn't really work like that. Infection requires physical contact with the virus through some means (air or surfaces). Imagine a contaminated gas station, and let's just say that our goal is to decontaminate it. The best case scenario for healthy persons to decontaminate the gas station would require them to go in and literally rub their bodies against all surfaces; and even that wouldn't really be all that effective... you'd do far better just breaking out a sponge and soapy water, which would actually work pretty well for the decontamination, than you could hope to do by exploiting this healthy human. Possibly you'd do better in your sanitation using a lint roller than your immune human.

relatively speaking, vulnerable people are 'Contributors' and immune people are 'Removers', ...right? — Roger Gregoire

Wrong. Vulnerable versus healthy makes no difference. Contributors are infected people, whether healthy or vulnerable. Vulnerable versus healthy only changes one thing, irrelevant to transmission... whether that infected contributor eventually becomes immune and no longer spreads/produces the virus as a result of being immune, or whether that infected contributor eventually becomes dead and no longer spreads/produces the virus as a result of not being alive.

Firstly, vulnerable people catch the virus by exposing themselves to contaminated environments and surfaces (and not necessarily 'directly' from other people). — Roger Gregoire

How do you know this? What research has been done on direct Vs indirect exposure?

For the most part, people with healthy immune systems don't replicate and shed the virus, ...they attack and kill it! — Roger Gregoire

I don't know where you picked this notion up, but it's false. CoViD 19 is extraordinarily contagious and is being "shed" very quickly - much more quickly than an immune system that hasn't already produced antibodies can react.

1. The healthier the immune system, the more it kills the virus, and the less it spreads it (as there is naturally less (or none) to spread). Healthy people are the 'Removers' of virus contamination. — Roger Gregoire

This just logically doesn't work. Not spreading isn't the same as removing.

2. The weaker the immune system, the less it kills the virus, and the more it spreads (as the virus replicates itself it becomes easier and more of it to spread). Vulnerable people are the 'Contributors' of virus contamination. — Roger Gregoire

Plausible, but not necessary. It's just as plausible vulnerable people spread the virus less, because they show symptoms earlier and this are isolated more quickly.

You're making this sound like healthy people clean up the environment, but it doesn't really work like that. — InPitzotl

Yes, healthy immune people "clean up" (kill the virus; stop the spread of) covid-19 contamination. If this were not true, then herd immunity would be impossible.

**********

Imagine a contaminated gas station, and let's just say that our goal is to decontaminate it. The best case scenario for healthy persons to decontaminate the gas station would require them to go in and literally rub their bodies against all surfaces; and even that wouldn't really be all that effective... you'd do far better just breaking out a sponge and soapy water, which would actually work pretty well for the decontamination, than you could hope to do by exploiting this healthy human. Possibly you'd do better in your sanitation using a lint roller than your immune human. — InPitzotl

Ha! ...I so agree. The healthy immune human could, as you say, rub their bodies, and sniff and lick the equipment in an attempt to decontaminate it, but I agree, there are much more effective ways to do this.

Where the healthy immune human may be more efficient at decontaminating, is through breathing in air borne viruses. Basically the healthy immune human is an air filtration system, breathing in virus contaminated air, and expelling less virus than they take in. Continual breathing one breath after another will slowly filter (remove) virus from the air.

***********

Vulnerable versus healthy makes no difference. Contributors are infected people, whether healthy or vulnerable. — InPitzotl

Healthy immune systems allow less total virus replication, which thereby means LESS to spread.
Weak immune systems allow more total virus replication, which thereby means MORE to spread.

And again, healthy immune people "clean up" (stop the spread of) covid-19 contamination. If this were not true, then herd immunity would be impossible.

***********

Firstly, vulnerable people catch the virus by exposing themselves to contaminated environments and surfaces (and not necessarily 'directly' from other people). — Roger Gregoire

How do you know this? What research has been done on direct Vs indirect exposure? — Echarmion

Simple logic tells us. Unless you are implying that all our respiratory systems are directly connected to each other, then for a virus to leave one person's respiratory system and enter another person's respiratory system, it must pass through some medium, or some causal chain of contact.

Yes, healthy immune people "clean up" (kill the virus; stop the spread of) covid-19 contamination. If this were not true, then herd immunity would be impossible. — Roger Gregoire

Immune people will "kill" whatever virus enters their system, but obviously this doesn't mean that they don't infect vulnerable people before they are immune. And the reason herd immunity works is not that immune people actively remove the contagion, they just don't actively spread it. Only a small fraction of virus cells ever enters a new host, so it needs to reproduce constantly and in large numbers to survive.

Where the healthy immune human may be more efficient at decontaminating, is through breathing in air borne viruses. Basically the healthy immune human is an air filtration system, breathing in virus contaminated air, and expelling less virus than they take in. Continual breathing one breath after another will slowly filter (remove) virus from the air. — Roger Gregoire

It's extremely implausible that humans breathe in all the virus in a given volume of air, unless it's in a small, airtight container. Human lungs also don't "filter" all the air that enters them.

Healthy immune systems allow less total virus replication, which thereby means LESS to spread. — Roger Gregoire

This is again simply false. A healthy immune system will not stop the virus from reproducing and spreading. It'll only prevent it from killing it's host.

Where the healthy immune human may be more efficient at decontaminating, is through breathing in air borne viruses. Basically the healthy immune human is an air filtration system, breathing in virus contaminated air, and expelling less virus than they take in. Continual breathing one breath after another will slowly filter (remove) virus from the air. — Roger Gregoire

Okay, so let's focus on the air path then. Your theory is that human breathing works as an air filter; but the contact thing is still true. Respiratory viruses (of which this is one) infect people by physically contacting those nice wet warm surfaces inside our lungs. But viruses are abstract; they're invisible, which is part of the problem, so it's hard to visualize them.

So let's visualize how this works by something easier to imagine... visible smoke. Smoke is just smoke particles suspended in air, and just like those viruses would stick on your nice wet warm alveoli, smoke particles would also stick to those (analogously we could talk about how breathing in carcinogenic smoke can cause lung cancer in this manner, but that's unnecessary, other than to demonstrate the validity of this analogy). So your healthy human can only clean up viruses by breathing the same manner that any breathing human can clean up the smoke from the room by breathing, since it's essentially the same exact kind of contact in both scenarios, with more or less the same effect (particles getting stuck to aveoli; be they smoke particles or viruses).

I think you can see where I'm going here. The analogous situation is that you're going to clear out a smoke filled room by sending humans inside it to breathe. That will indeed clear the smoke, a trivial amount, but it's way below the level of even simply opening a window.

Healthy immune systems allow less total virus replication, which thereby means LESS to spread.
Weak immune systems allow more total virus replication, which thereby means MORE to spread. — Roger Gregoire

But you're comparing irrelevant factors. Let H(B) be the amount of viruses produced by a healthy infected person; and V(B) be the amount produced by a vulnerable infected person. If there are h healthy people infected and v vulnerable infected, then we have as a baseline h*H(B)+v*V(B) viruses produced. If h1<h2, then the difference between h2 and h1 healthy people getting infected is a contribution of (h2-h1)*H(B) viruses, and that's positive given only that H(B)>0, which it is. In other words, infecting more healthy people adds a risk proportional to H(B) times that many healthy people; that H(B)<V(B) is lovely and all, but that risk is still necessarily positive when H(B)>0, which it is.

And again, healthy immune people "clean up" (stop the spread of) covid-19 contamination. If this were not true, then herd immunity would be impossible. — Roger Gregoire

You severely misunderstand herd immunity. You said it yourself; the virus in your model is only viable for 7 days. That's the main factor. So a virus has a lifetime; it's born day 0 in an infected person. For viruses to infect another person, it has to make it from this person in state B to a person in state A, in a sufficient quantity to cause that person to get infected. Since the lifetime is 7 days, then on average the viruses produced by this state B person need to infect at least one other person (in state A) within 7 days. If that average becomes less than one person, then the number of infected people would start to drop; that roughly represents less density of the virus in the population than required to infect the next guy. Once that happens, the living virus's population will tend to drift down to 0, and once that happens, you have herd immunity.

Immune people will "kill" whatever virus enters their system, but obviously this doesn't mean that they don't infect vulnerable people before they are immune. — Echarmion

You are missing the point.

1. Healthy immune people kill more virus than they spread.
2. Vulnerable people spread more virus than than they kill.

1. Fire extinguishers put out more fire than they create.
2. Gasoline creates more fire than it extinguishes.

1. If you want to stop a fire, then use a fire extinguisher.
2. If you want to stop the covid virus, then use healthy immune people.

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

And the reason herd immunity works is not that immune people actively remove the contagion, they just don't actively spread it. — Echarmion

Not so. Healthy immune systems destroy infected cells (via white blood cells; leukocytes) and prevent virus replications (via interferon proteins).

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

A healthy immune system will not stop the virus from reproducing and spreading. — Echarmion

Absolutely False.

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

Okay, so let's focus on the air path then. Your theory is that human breathing works as an air filter; but the contact thing is still true. Respiratory viruses (of which this is one) infect people by physically contacting those nice wet warm surfaces inside our lungs. — InPitzotl

Agreed. Good so far.

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

So let's visualize how this works by something easier to imagine... visible smoke. Smoke is just smoke particles suspended in air, and just like those viruses would stick on your nice wet warm alveoli, smoke particles would also stick to those (analogously we could talk about how breathing in carcinogenic smoke can cause lung cancer in this manner, but that's unnecessary, other than to demonstrate the validity of this analogy). So your healthy human can only clean up viruses by breathing the same manner that any breathing human can clean up the smoke from the room by breathing, since it's essentially the same exact kind of contact in both scenarios, with more or less the same effect (particles getting stuck to aveoli; be they smoke particles or viruses). — InPitzotl

Okay I'm with you so far.

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

I think you can see where I'm going here. The analogous situation is that you're going to clear out a smoke filled room by sending humans inside it to breathe. That will indeed clear the smoke, a trivial amount, but it's way below the level of even simply opening a window. — InPitzotl

I'm not sure I follow. The point is that if you have a room that contains a fixed amount of airborne covid virus, and you send in a group of healthy immune people to breathe the air for a given amount of time, and then you send these people out of the room, the room would then have lesser amount of covid virus. The room is now cleaner, ready for uninfected vulnerable people to use. It's as if the healthy immune people were sponges that absorbed and removed the virus.

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

Healthy immune systems allow less total virus replication, which thereby means LESS to spread.
Weak immune systems allow more total virus replication, which thereby means MORE to spread. — Roger Gregoire

But you're comparing irrelevant factors. Let H(B) be the amount of viruses produced by a healthy infected person; and V(B) be the amount produced by a vulnerable infected person. If there are h healthy people infected and v vulnerable infected, then we have as a baseline h*H(B)+v*V(B) viruses produced. — InPitzotl

I think I understand what you are getting at, but it is not the correct view (imo). Here is my take - For instance, and just for sake of discussion, let's say that vulnerable people contribute 100 replicated virus bugs per hour into the environment while healthy people eat (destroy) a net of 25 of these bugs per hour (i.e. they eat 30 bugs but they emit 5 of them while doing so, thereby giving a net of -25). If this is so, then we are doomed; it is a losing battle; more bugs are being emitted/shedded into the environment than is being removed (...which so happens to represent our reality today!).

So now, how do we remove more than we emit? Answer: Get the vulnerable people out of the environment (into quarantine) and release and speed up as many of the healthy people to gobble up, as fast as they can, all the bugs that are out there, ...the sooner we do this, the sooner life can return to normal.

But unfortunately, bad science is telling us to slow down both groups, under the false belief that we will see improvement. And because things are only getting worse, they (bad science) are now telling us to slow everybody down even more (more socially distancing), and to make matters worse, they are telling the recently immunized population to keep hiding (slow down; continue social distancing). All this guarantees that the rate of bug increase will soon surpass the rate that healthy people can eat these bugs. ...not only that but the group of healthy people continually get smaller (as the virus continually mutates), while the number of bugs increase.

Again, this is like holding back the fire extinguisher for fear it may add to the fire. The longer we wait, the fire extinguisher gets smaller while the fire grows larger. The point-of-no-return is when there is not enough extinguisher material to put out the fire. Then we will be the extinguished.

2. If you want to stop the covid virus, then use healthy immune people. — Roger Gregoire

How do you suppose we get immune people? That's the whole point of the vaccination drive.

Absolutely False. — Roger Gregoire

I think I am going to trust actual scientists over your opinion on this.