You are bone-ignorant about science and public policy, you can't formulate a sound argument to save your life, and yet you presume to advise experts and decision-makers. Normally I just ignore internet cranks, but I make an exception here, because bozos like you spread disinformation that does real harm. — SophistiCat

Just a piece of friendly advice here (if you wish to accept it)... be careful with the ad hominen attacks (the casting of insults). To many of us that value debate and discussion, when someone resorts to insults, it is an indicator of defeat; it is a big white flag; it means that they've lost the argument and they have nothing more rational to argue with.

If you wish to keep arguing (in the friendly sense), then let's do it respectfully, as it helps clarify and prove the point that this OP makes.

At the heart of it all, there is just no possible end in sight. I plan to get the vaccine whenever I am able but felt so miserable reading in the news yesterday that the vaccine will not bring any end to social distancing. The news article even sugges ted that the vaccine program might be a bad thing because it might mean that people stop thinking that they need to distance any longer. With the current approach of policy makers it is hard to see any hope for a way out of the situation. Is it any wonder that people are feeling depressed and unwell mentally? — Jack Cummins

Well said Jack. Our current policy makers (Dr. Fauci, et al), and those that blindly follow, and enforce these policies are leading us all over the cliff.

There are many thousands of worldwide top scientists and medical experts (e.g. such as those that have signed the Great Barrington Declaration) that see the same logical error and catastrophic results (that I illustrate in this post), but yet, they are being labeled as "misinformed quacks" and effectively "silenced" (cancelled) by the mainstream media and those others that cannot see the logical implications of our current policies.

One matter which I think has not been addressed by policy makers is whether social distancing is really stopping the virus? In particular, today I heard of one person I know who has tested positive and she not been out or mixed with any other people in ages. She thinks that she must have contracted it through food delivered outside the door. So, it is questionable whether the virus is just about human transmission through contact with others or other sources, such as food. — Jack Cummins

Empirical data tells us that not only does social distancing NOT work, but it actually makes things worse.

There is lots of social distancing going on, but yet the virus deaths are only increasing/accelerating. Also, those countries with the strictest social distancing mandates (e.g. UK, USA) are having the fastest INCREASE in covid deaths-per-capita, whereas those countries that have the least social distancing mandates (e.g. Sweden) are having the fastest DECREASE in the growth of covid deaths-per-capita.

The empirical evidence is there in front of our faces, but yet we close our eyes to it, and keep doing the same thing, and expecting a different result. ...isn't that the definition of "insanity" - doing the same thing, but yet expect a different result?

Hopefully, we wake up soon (...before it is too late!).

Vulnerable means: can get the disease. Invulnerable is synonymous with immune, the vaccinated plus the recovered. — LuckyR

Not to necessarily disagree, but this is a different definition than the one used in my analogy/OP.

***********

Social distancing is a crutch while we wait for the vaccine to solve the problem, so neither of us thinks it is the solution. — LuckyR

I agree that social distancing is very rational for our vulnerable population (those with weak or compromised immune systems), ...but it is highly irrational for our healthy population (...it is self-defeating; it kills more vulnerable people than it saves).

***********

SophistiCat, it seems that you view healthy people (those with strong immune systems) more as "spreaders" of the virus than as "removers" of the virus. — Roger Gregoire

People aren't "removers" of the virus. — SophistiCat

Don't healthy immune systems attack and kill invading viruses?

***********

Once it is out of its host, a virus dies on its own if it doesn't find a new host, which is nearly always. — SophistiCat

Agreed, but to clarify, when it is shedded from its host (via a sneeze, etc), it doesn't die immediately, it can stay alive for up to 7 days depending on the surface it lands on.

***********

If a virus succeeds in infecting a new host, even someone who for whatever reason doesn't show symptoms (it's more complicated than just having a healthy immune system), that by definition means that the virus is reproducing - increasing the probability of its further transmission (asymptomatic carriers are infectious) and of new mutations arising. — SophistiCat

Yes, 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, healthy immune systems don't replicate and spread 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).

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).

***********

You need to stop thinking in terms of analogies and think about the real situation, which isn't so complicated that one cannot understand it otherwise. We are all, hopefully, familiar with the basics of the germ theory of disease. And educate yourself a little before pontificating on this topic. — SophistiCat

No offense SophistiCat, but the purpose of the analogies is to put a rational perspective on this whole situation. Right now, the general public is being fed misinformation in the form of "fear mongering" which is only making a bad situation much, much worse. We don't realize the grave impact (and soon to be irreversible mass destruction) that the social distancing of our healthy population is causing.

The justification to implement social distancing measures on healthy people is logically flawed. Science that disregards Logic = Bad Science. Our adherence to Bad Science will destroy us all.

Several things: first, we don't need to "kill" viruses, we just need to deprive them of hosts.Thus viruses don't need to be "attack"ed. That's the value of social distancing. — LuckyR

Do you think we can "social distance" our way out of this mess? ...or do we need herd immunity (of the healthy and recently vaccinated)?

Your first statement is self-contradictory, since the "vulnerable" population IS the "healthy" population. — LuckyR

I don't follow. Vulnerable refers to those with 'weak/bad' immune systems. And healthy refers to those with 'strong/good' immune systems. They are NOT the same.

SophistiCat, it seems that you view healthy people (those with strong immune systems) more as "spreaders" of the virus than as "removers" of the virus (as is illustrated in the car analogy). ...yes, or no?

********

But I suspect most school age kids and young adults are healthy enough to take off their masks and immediately begin large scale socialization (activities). — Roger Gregoire

And then infect the vulnerable. — baker

This is the Mistake #2. (Mistake #1 is not recognizing the two different segments of the population; healthy and vulnerable). The fear of catching the virus from a healthy person is precisely what is allowing the virus to grow larger and kill more people. For the most part, healthy immune systems don't replicate and spread 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).

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).

If we stop healthy people's immune systems from attacking and killing the virus (via strategic herd immunity) that it encounters in society for fear that they may shed some of the virus back into society, then the virus will NEVER stop. It will only grow (perpetuate) and mutate which means that as time goes on there will be less and less healthy people (to fight the virus) and more and more vulnerable people (to die from the virus). It will continue until "Natural Selection" is complete. The virus wins. Humans lose.

If we stop a vacuum cleaner from cleaning the dirt off the rug for fear that the vacuum cleaner may expel some of the dirt back onto the rug, then the rug will NEVER get cleaned. - It will only get dirtier, as the dirty shoes traveling across the rug will shed/spread more and more dirt on the rug.

********

In South London, during a previous time in between lockdowns, I saw on many occasions groups of school pupils, and they looked about 16 years old at least, crowding onto busses and inside shops and not a mask in sight. At this time, which was before the time of the new strain of the virus, so many people were wondering why the infection rate was rising tremendously and I believe this was a large part of the problem.

But of course, it would be wrong to just blame the school children. Also, a lot of adults were not sticking to rules and I also believe that people having to live in overcrowded living conditions was and still is a stumbling block in enabling people to socially distance to bringing the infection rate down properly. — Jack Cummins

Good comments, but to add/clarify we should be more concerned about 'total deaths' rather than 'infection rate'. Increasing infection rate of our vulnerable population is BAD (it increases overall deaths), and the increasing infection rate of our healthy population is GOOD (it decreases overall deaths).

********

...and enough of us will flout the rules to keep the population growing. — unenlightened

Hopefully so! Hopefully many of our healthy population will flout the irrational and deadly rules of social distancing (of our healthy population) to save the whole human population.

********

Unfortunately other than age trends, it is difficult to categorize immune system strength before illness. I agree with you about the recovered and the vaccinated, scientifically, but psychologically it would lead to a two tiered system in a situation that is already tribalistic, so I agree that it is more practical to continue as we are doing until hospitalization numbers drop. — LuckyR

The hospital numbers are a bit deceiving as they really reflect the adherence/non-adherence of social distancing by our 'vulnerable' population, not our 'healthy' population. Social distancing of our healthy population has little to no effect on hospital burden.

I also wholly agree that our vulnerable population is not doing enough to protect themselves. For example, too many of them are in the grocery stores wearing these porous paper or cloth masks, and touching stuff that everyone else has touched. If they are going to risk their lives going out in public, then they need hazmat suits, or just stay home in quarantine.

But if we don't turn our healthy people loose (including those recently vaccinated) on attacking and killing this virus (via "strategic" herd immunity), then the party is over. No one will survive this virus. We are already close to the point-of-no-return (where the infection/replication rate is greater than our rate to attack and kill this virus).

If you are not sure, then it is best that you keep the mask on and keep social distancing. We wouldn't want to contribute to the problem

But I suspect most school age kids and young adults are healthy enough to take off their masks and immediately begin large scale socialization (activities).

For the more healthy people we get to take off their masks and start social distancing full time, the faster this virus will dissipate, and the more lives we will save.

In the case of covid, the point of social distancing is to slow down the infection rate, so that the medical system doesn't collapse. — baker

We have two different segments (vulnerable and healthy) of our population which should be treated differently to minimize the overall total deaths (to "save lives"). In other words, "slowing down the spread" to our vulnerable population DECREASE the load on our medical system, and "slowing down the spread" to our healthy population INCREASE the load on our medical system. Although it seems contrary, we need to "speed up the spread" to our healthy population (who in most cases will be asymptomatic) to DECREASE the load on our medical systems and minimize overall total deaths.

To better understand this, review the analogy in the OP.

Secondly, who exactly are "the healthy"? If you look at obesity and diabetes rates (two major risks for covid complications), the healthy are actually a relatively small group. — baker

Not so. We have a very large population of those under 30 years old. Most of these have very strong immune systems. Also there are many extremely healthy (with strong immune systems) of those older than 30.

Hi LuckyR, I recognize your name from another forum. (I was "RJG"). What ever happened to onlinephilosophy? It seems they are no longer on the web.

A couple of things. First the current mutations are covered quite nicely by the vaccines. Secondly, the difference in hospitalization rate between those over 80 and those between 40 and 79 is about 3 to 1. So younger folks are not as "immune" as your analogies (?) imply. At the same time, the total number of those 40 to 79 is much higher (140 million vs 10 million). — LuckyR

I don't imply "age" at all. Although generally true, it is not necessarily about age (old people can have good immune systems, and young people can have bad immune system), it's more about the condition of one's "immune" system. In my analogy I refer to the condition of one's immune system as good tire tread (lots of deep tread) or bald/balding tires.

Basically we are going to get to herd immunity. You get there through a combo of exposure to illness and vaccination. — LuckyR

Agreed. This is the only way to stop the virus. Herd immunity (via infection or vaccination) will ultimately require that these people mix back into society to give the protective effect of herd immunity. But if we keep these people, or continue to keep and hide away our healthy (those that are immune via infection (with healthy immune systems) or via vaccination) socially isolated, then we have accomplished nothing. That is my point. The healthy (and those recently immunized) need to immediately get out in public (take off the mask, stop the social distancing) so the fire extinguisher can do its work.

Social distancing is the reason why things aren't worse than they are. The reason why the situation is so bad is because people have been flouting social distancing regulations. — TheMadFool

HiMadFool, I agree that we need more and better social distancing of our vulnerable population. BUT social distancing the healthy population is counter productive and if we keep it up, then we are all doomed. To better understand this point, read the analogy that I gave.

Things are actually getting worse because of too much social distancing of our healthy population. The fire is getting bigger because we are hiding and keeping the fire extinguisher away from the fire! ...and if we wait too long, the fire will be too big to put out.

Remember, herd immunity (via infection or vaccination) is the ONLY way to stop this virus.