Part 2 - Will Continued Social Distancing Ultimately Destroy All Human Life on this Planet?

[Steve3007]

The 60% refers to the saturation or "density" of immune people within the herd. "Distance" between people, is absolutely irrelevant when calculating the "density" of immune people within a given population (herd).

So you're saying that the density of a collection of objects is unrelated to the average distance between the objects, yes?

[RJG]

The 60% refers to the saturation or "density" of immune people within the herd. "Distance" between people, is absolutely irrelevant when calculating the "density" of immune people within a given population (herd).

So you're saying that the density of a collection of objects is unrelated to the average distance between the objects, yes?

Yes, correct. The "distance" between any of the 10 marbles within a box (a given environment), has absolutely no bearing/effect whatsoever on the 60% "density" of the 6 blue marbles (immune people) within the box of 10 total marbles (within the herd).

[Steve3007]

Yes, correct.

So in a box containing a million objects, in your view, the average distance between the objects is the same as in box of the same size containing 2 objects, yes?

[RJG]

So in a box containing a million objects, in your view, the average distance between the objects is the same as in box of the same size containing 2 objects, yes?

The "average distance" between the objects has absolutely nothing to do with the "density" of blue marbles to the total. Distance is totally irrelevant to "density" within a given environment.

[Steve3007]

The "distance" between any of the 10 marbles within a box (a given environment), has absolutely no bearing/effect whatsoever on the 60% "density" of 6 blue marbles to the 10 total marbles.

We're not talking about the distance between any of the 10 marbles and you know that. We're talking about the distance between vulnerable people. You should have gone away for longer to find a better get-out. Or better yet, can't you ever just admit to being wrong about something?

If 4 of the marbles in that box are red, what is the average distance between red marbles compared to the situation when 10 are red. Is it:

(a) Larger
(b) The same
(c) Smaller

[RJG]

The "distance" between any of the 10 marbles within a box (a given environment), has absolutely no bearing/effect whatsoever on the 60% "density" of 6 blue marbles to the 10 total marbles.

We're not talking about the distance between any of the 10 marbles and you know that. We're talking about the distance between vulnerable people. You should have gone away for longer to find a better get-out. Or better yet, can't you ever just admit to being wrong about something?

It doesn't matter if we are talking about marbles or people. The point is that "distance" between vulnerable people has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the "density" of immune people to the total population.

Why is this so difficult to comprehend?

If 4 of the marbles in that box are red, what is the average distance between red marbles compared to the situation when 10 are red. Is it:

(a) Larger
(b) The same
(c) Smaller

The more red marbles in this box means that the average distance between red marbles is closer. So what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

So what does the "distance" between the 4 red marbles (or 10 red marbles) have anything to do with the density of red (or blue) marbles to the total number of marbles? ...a smaller/closer "distance" does NOT change/effect the "density"!

...can't you ever just admit to being wrong about something?

I think this question applies more to you, and your refusal to admit that "distance" is irrelevant to "density" within a given environment.

[Steve3007]

The point is that "distance" between vulnerable people has absolutely no bearing on the "density" of immune people to the total population.

Why is this so difficult to comprehend?

Because it's self-evidently not true. You know that really, don't you?

[RJG]

The point is that "distance" between vulnerable people has absolutely no bearing on the "density" of immune people to the total population. Why is this so difficult to comprehend?

Because it's self-evidently not true. You know that really, don't you?

Seriously?

[Steve3007]

If 4 of the marbles in that box are red, what is the average distance between red marbles compared to the situation when 10 are red. Is it:

(a) Larger
(b) The same
(c) Smaller

Your answer:

The more red marbles in this box means that the average distance between red marbles is closer.

If 4 of the people in that box are vulnerable, what is the average distance between vulnerable people compared to the situation when 10 are vulnerable. Is it:

(a) Larger
(b) The same
(c) Smaller

[Steve3007]

It's kind of interesting to see just how close you're willing to go towards almost literally claiming that 2 + 2 = 5 or equivalent in order to avoid having to simply say "Ah yes, I see what you mean. Obviously for a given total density of people, the larger the proportion of immune people, the smaller the proportion of vulnerable people and therefore the larger the average distance between vulnerable people."

[RJG]

Steve, try it yourself,

1. If you pile all 10 marbles (6 blue and 4 red) into the corner of the box (so they touch [zero distance between] each other), then what is the density of blue marbles to the total? Answer = 60%

2. If you spread out all the marbles as much as possible within this box, then what is the density of blue marbles to the total? Answer = 60%

Therefore, "distance" has absolutely no effect on "density" within a given environment.

[Steve3007]

No answer then, huh?

[RJG]

If 4 of the people in that box are vulnerable, what is the average distance between vulnerable people compared to the situation when 10 are vulnerable.

What does this have to do with density?

Steve, try it yourself,

1. If you pile all 10 marbles (6 blue and 4 red) into the corner of the box (so they touch [zero distance between] each other), then what is the density of blue marbles to the total? Answer = 60%

2. If you spread out all the marbles as much as possible within this box (thereby increasing the distance), then what is the density of blue marbles to the total? Answer = 60%

Therefore, "distance" has absolutely no effect on "density" within a given environment.

**************
Bottom-line: Herd immunity is a function of density (not distance!), based on the percentage of immune people to total number of people within a given environment (herd), as is expressed by the equation T = 1-1/R₀.

"Distance" is totally irrelevant to the protective effects of herd immunity.

[Steve3007]

RJG, you do know what the word density means, right? You know it means amount of stuff per unit volume or per unit area? You know it doesn't mean the same as the word proportion? So if we talk about the density of a population we're talking about the number of people per unit area. If we talk about the density of the vulnerable people in that population we're talking about the number of vulnerable people per unit area. I've made this clear from the start, but I know from experience not to expect you to read what I say.

[Steve3007]

The fact that you put the word "density" in quotes is what makes me suspect this. You arbitrarily stick things into quotes very frequently, so I didn't think anything much of it. But often when people use quotes like that it means they don't really mean that word. I'm so used to you trying to claim that black is white that this didn't occur to me earlier, but maybe when you keep trying to say the equivalent of 2 + 2 = "5" it's because when you say "5" you actually mean 4.