HERE ARE MY SPECIFIC WORDS below. — Roger Gregoire

We're going in circles. This is the flaw in your theory that makes this ridiculous:

...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. — Roger Gregoire

...and those are your specific words.

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. — Roger Gregoire

Joe, John are in the same environment if they are in a kitchen. John cannot eat any pie that Joe eats. But if there are 10 pies and Joe and John together can only eat 5, division is inappropriate.

So when would it be appropriate? This is just as wrong if you repeat it.

...wow.

...wow. — Roger Gregoire

I suggest that your frustration is that I don't agree with something you think is obvious. But I suggest you're not thinking about the situation because you're too busy defending what you think is obvious to realize what's actually relevant, and this affects your original premise because it makes your conclusions irrelevant while it leaves you the mistaken belief that it's obvious.

There's no way you cannot accept that division is sometimes inappropriate. It's ridiculous to expect us to get half as wet walking into the rain together than separately. So I challenge you to identify the critical difference.

...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.

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.

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!

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


And locked.

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.

Those with healthy immune systems, when infected, attack and kill the virus, thereby "removing" more of the virus from the environment, than they contribute. — Roger Gregoire

Speaking as a medical professional I can tell you this is not true. 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. 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.

Furthermore, the coughing, runny nose etc that helps to transmit the virus is not a direct cause of the virus but rather the body’s Indirect immune reaction to the invader, people with an active immune system use these defences which unfortunately are exactly what the virus needs to contaminate the environment. Your immune system is what produces the Infective snots and phlegm.

Regardless of the health of ones immune system If they are not already immune the viral load fairly similar. A healthy person could in a sense be worse because their sustained asymptomatic state renders them an ideal candidate for continuing to spread the virus - they don’t feel as achy and fatigued so carry on in their daily activities acting as a reservoir until they overcome the infection. Those that suffer more severe symptoms are more likely to stay at home in isolation.

If someone dies from the virus they can no longer propagate its transmission. The host needs to be living. The most virulent infections are those that go generally unnoticed and don’t alter the standard daily behaviour of the carrier - which is usually a much more social and interactive State then that of being “stuck home sick”.

The only people “removing the virus from the environment” are those supplying a vaccine or sanitising the environment with Anti viral solutions such as alcohol which dissolves the viral capsid rendering it unable to contain its genetic code and penetrate cells.

No one believes that they catch Covid directly from other people's lungs without an intermediary, or that healthy people out and about are more contagious than unhealthy people out and about (it's the fact that they're out and about more), or that everyone needs to be immune to be relatively safe, or that mask-wearing is to promote herd immunity. And no one's policy is based on any of these things.

What about the theory that the Pope is not a Catholic?

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.

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?

We have a new leader in the dumbest thing I ever read contest - and allow me to assure you that competition has been fierce. Roger Gregoire comes out of nowhere with his "healthy people remove virus from the environment" idea, straight into the lead - and he's leading the field by a country mile. That is astonishing stupidity. Really top class!

Atmosphere is the shared matter of respiration. 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.

If that description is too abstract, consider what it is like when you hang out with smokers. They absorb some of the tar and nicotine but a lot comes right back out again and when you inhale, you are sharing in their experience.

I'm interpreting your meaning to be that you have a different set of opinions.

This is hardly the place to be offering up absolute declarations of fact and truth, especially with additional verbal abuse attached, would you say?

I'm interpreting your meaning to be that you have a different set of opinions. — Tres Bien

Ah, then you misunderstand! What I'm saying is that the OP is wrong, wrong, wrongy, wrong wrong! That's a technical term. It means "the scientifically invalid and potentially deadly, stupid opinions of a complete moron and/or vicious arsehole."

This is hardly the place to be offering up absolute declarations of fact and truth, especially with additional verbal abuse attached, would you say? — Tres Bien

I'm not sure. Let me check the title of this thread. Erm, actually - yes, this is the place to be making statements of fact and handing out abuse. People are dying - and this prick wants to muddy the waters with his.... "I didn't kill grandma" reinterpretation of the facts.

Yes, you fucking did Roger!

The point of all the masks, rules and whatever is not just the virus itself but you need to include the social responses of humans. Some will say it's all propaganda for some higher purpose, others will follow like sheep, some with rebel with anger and others will understand and accept. What often happens is that most people don't know what they are talking about and some try to infect others with their own verbal viruses because their made up ideas are superior to all others.

I challenge you to prove me wrong. — Roger Gregoire

I'm afraid you have it backwards Roger:

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. — Hitchen's razor

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.

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

Making stuff up isn't a valid epistemic approach.

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. — Roger Gregoire

Firstly, rationale - with an E, is a noun that refers to the explanatory theme or logical underpinning of an argument. Rational is an adjective, defined as 'a capacity to reason.'

Secondly, I wholly reserve my right to be unintelligent on occasion.

Thirdly, I am assuming this thread got merged with your other "I didn't kill grandma" thread about Covid restrictions. Why not come clean about your rationale - because it certainly isn't based in a scientific understanding of microbiology?

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

People do infect other people. That isn't dispelled by the non-existence of direct lung-to-lung transmission, it just means that they infect one another across a given medium.

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. — Roger Gregoire

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

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.

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.

You're not a logician Roger. You're hiding your motives. Why are you doing this?

Did you kill grandma? Is your business going under? Do you just hate wearing a mask?

healthy people who would normally remove more of the virus than they contribute — Roger Gregoire

A claim for which you have yet to provide a scrap of evidence. Seriously. @StreetlightX, should this not go the way of the 'men in academia' thread?

We have repeated posting of frankly dangerous claims and a persistent refusal to provide any evidence, or even read evidence to the contrary.

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?

But then, you would probably be too sick to go out in public environments in the first place. — Roger Gregoire

No, people are contagious prior to being symptomatic. Some people don't have obvious symptoms at all.

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. If the person is healthy and immune, they might still be a carrier. If they are healthy and have never had it, they might get it. If they not healthy, they might spread it. Masks mitigate each of these possibilities which, on are statistical level, reduces transmission overall.

But no one acts as a viral vacuum.

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? — Roger Gregoire

That's not what herd immunity is you utter flump! Herd immunity is when a large enough percentage of the population has got antibodies to the disease that it cannot spread!

Roger thinks that herd immunity works by the people with antibodies vacuuming up, and killing all the viruses so that they can't infect others.