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

[RJG]

Greta, unless I'm missing it somewhere, there is nothing in the equations that Steve posted that refers to "distance".

His claim that these equations prove that "distance" determines "herd immunity" is logically invalid and unsound.

We don’t get herd immunity by social "distancing" people AWAY from the herd. We get herd immunity by moving immune people INTO the herd.

[RJG]

Steve, Greta, and others,

Let's get right to the root of this entire discussion - Irregardless of how we define (or ague about) "herd immunity" do you agree with virtually all medical experts and scientists that:

Herd immunity is our ONLY means to stop this virus.

Yes or No? - If Yes, then what the hell are we waiting for?

[LuckyR]

Steve, Greta, and others,

Let's get right to the root of this entire discussion - Irregardless of how we define (or ague about) "herd immunity" do you agree with virtually all medical experts and scientists that:

Herd immunity is our ONLY means to stop this virus.

Yes or No? - If Yes, then what the hell are we waiting for?

Who's waiting? Vaccinations are going as fast as bureaucracies can go.

[Steve3007]

Vaccinations are going as fast as bureaucracies can go.

It would be interesting the hear how the vaccination rollout is going in various parts of the world right now. My experience where I live (UK) so far is this:

My parents are both in their 70's and have now both had their first injection. My dad sligthly earlier than my mum because he's over 75. As it happens, my dad had the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and my mum the Oxford/AstraZeneca one. My partner's mum is in her 80's and her dad is in his 90's. As I recall I think her dad has had both injections. Her mum has had one so far and has the next one scheduled soon. I drove her to the clinic where she had it. It was done as a drive through, surprisingly quickly. They injected her left arm through the passenger side window. (I resisted the temptation to ask for fries with it.) My elder sister has recently been diagnosed with leukaemia and my partner's elder brother has recently been diagnosed with lung cancer. They're both in their late 50's but their illnesses bumped them up the priority list and they've both had vaccines too. The infection rate in the UK seems to be finally coming down now due to the social distancing measures in place and perhaps because we're starting to see the initial effects of the vaccine rollout. So the plan at the moment is to gradually start lifting restrictions soon, once the vaccination rate has reached an acceptable level. I may be able to drive up to visit my parents in May and will hopefully have had a vaccine dose myself (and my partner) by then.

With the benefit of hindsight, it seems that lifting restrictions in summer last year, here, was premature if we didn't want the level of deaths that we got as a result. The second wave of infections that began in autumn was the predictable result of that, it seems. But the wider question of weighing the number of deaths caused by lifting restrictions versus the damage to the economy, mental health etc by keeping the restrictions isn't one with any clear objective answer, I think. It depends on what level of death we consider to be acceptable in order to keep society functioning. Anyway, here in the UK, the plan at this point is for everybody who wants one to have had a vaccine by the end of this summer. Then I guess it depends on how the immunity created by the combination of vaccination and people having had the virus copes with various different strains. It seems that as with things like influenza the mutations of this virus may well ensure that it remains endemic and, like flu, we learn to live with it even though it still has an annual death toll.

[Steve3007]

OK. I didn't realize that was how it works with equations. Please point to the vacuum cleaner term in the equation - the term which represents the rate at which immune people remove virus from the environment as you've said they do. Here it is again:

T = 1 - 1 / R0

This equation has nothing to do with vacuum cleaners.

OK good. It's good to see that you've dropped this idea of yours that T = 1 - 1 / R₀ (herd immunity) works by immune people removing the virus from the environment. As you've said here, it has nothing to do with that.

[Belindi]

Steve, Greta, and others,

Let's get right to the root of this entire discussion - Irregardless of how we define (or ague about) "herd immunity" do you agree with virtually all medical experts and scientists that:

Herd immunity is our ONLY means to stop this virus.

Yes or No? - If Yes, then what the hell are we waiting for?

Who's waiting? Vaccinations are going as fast as bureaucracies can go.

RJG advocates naturally- acquired specific immunity to coronavirus:
"The more you engage in social activities with others, the quicker we can save ourselves." RJG.

[Sculptor1]

Steve, Greta, and others,

Let's get right to the root of this entire discussion - Irregardless of how we define (or ague about) "herd immunity" do you agree with virtually all medical experts and scientists that:

Herd immunity is our ONLY means to stop this virus.

Yes or No? - If Yes, then what the hell are we waiting for?

Who's waiting? Vaccinations are going as fast as bureaucracies can go.

RJG advocates naturally- acquired specific immunity to coronavirus:
"The more you engage in social activities with others, the quicker we can save ourselves." RJG.

Seeking herd immunity has failed in the uk with the highest death rate amongst comparable countries.
Unless you slow down the infection rate you risk health services being overwhelmed and the mortality rate rockets, and so does long covid.
Who is RJG, btw? Sounds like a total wanker.

[RJG]

If herd immunity is our ONLY means to stop this virus, then what the hell are we waiting for?

Who's waiting? Vaccinations are going as fast as bureaucracies can go.

Vaccination, by itself, does not give us herd immunity. If immune people are kept from the herd, then there can be no herd immunity. If we continue to mask and socially distance our recently vaccinated, then we have accomplished nothing. The "stoppers" of the virus are being kept from stopping the virus!

RJG advocates naturally- acquired specific immunity to coronavirus:
"The more you engage in social activities with others, the quicker we can save ourselves." - RJG.

Belindi, you are not being totally truthful here. I've said that we get herd immunity by allowing those recently vaccinated, and those previously infected, to engage in social activities. Masking and social distancing our immune people prevent herd immunity.

I also would argue (maybe a separate discussion) that healthy school age kids and young adults should also un-mask and participate in herd immunity.

But at the very least we need to immediately let the recently vaccinated and the previously infected rejoin society, that is, if we want to implement herd immunity and save ourselves. Why we are not doing this now goes beyond rational comprehension, which leads back to my initial question -- "If herd immunity is our ONLY means to stop this virus, then what the hell are we waiting for?"

"Herd immunity happens when a virus can’t spread because it keeps encountering people who are protected against infection."

It's good to see that you've dropped this idea of yours that T = 1 - 1 / R0 (herd immunity) works by immune people removing the virus from the environment.

For every virus that "encounters" (is stopped and killed within) an immune person, means one less virus that can infect a vulnerable person. In this sense, immune people "remove" the virus from the environment, thereby creating the "protective effect" called herd immunity.

To put it simply, if we keep the "stoppers" of this virus away from this virus, then there is nothing to stop this virus. Keeping immune people masked and socially distanced from the virus does nothing to "stop" this virus.

Steve, why is this such a tough concept for you to grasp? ...is it because defending your current belief is more important?

**************
Bottom-line: Preventing immune people from rejoining society, means:

1) continued deaths to many vulnerable people (i.e. nothing out there to "stop" the virus), and
2) continued spread of the virus (i.e. keeping all the "stoppers" away from the virus, means the virus does not "stop"), and
3) continued (potentially deadlier) mutations (i.e. unabated growth yields unabated mutations).

**************
Personal note to Steve and others: Steve, it seems that you are others are more interested in defending your current beliefs, than in trying to comprehend the point I'm trying to make. If you are happy and content in your current beliefs then I have failed to make you see a different view. I have failed to make you see the cliff we are headed over by continuing on our current path. If I (and the many other thousands like me) can't make you and others especially those in control of our covid policies see the cliff, then I guess our destiny is set. In 5-10 years all humans will be gone from this planet. Start making your final preparations now. Seriously. -- by the time we realize our foolishness, it will be too late.

THE END

[Steve3007]

"Herd immunity happens when a virus can’t spread because it keeps encountering people who are protected against infection."

viewtopic.php?p=377598#p377598

Please don't misrepresent my words again.

[RJG]

"Herd immunity happens when a virus can’t spread because it keeps encountering people who are protected against infection."

Seriously Steve, ...this is what you are concerned about?? The above is not your words, but words that you posted. ...feel better now?

Can you stop being so damn defensive about everything, and try to see the point that I am making? ...are you capable of that?

[Belindi]

RJG wrote:

Belindi, you are not being totally truthful here. I've said that we get herd immunity by allowing those recently vaccinated, and those previously infected, to engage in social activities. Masking and social distancing our immune people prevent herd immunity.

I also would argue (maybe a separate discussion) that healthy school age kids and young adults should also un-mask and participate in herd immunity.

You would be risking too much in view of the fact 1.coronavirus unpredictably mutates and 2. previous infection however acquired does not confer reliable immunity. Reinfection of the same individual happens. Moreover the speed of infectivity of coronavirus is such that an individual who tests negative today might test positive tomorrow.

Your filtering model can work for a home infested with dog fleas . Dog fleas and their eggs are limited in number in a given house or kennel. Coronavirus borne as it is by aerosols and wandering humans is not containable by a given number of filters.

[RJG]

I've said that we get herd immunity by allowing those recently vaccinated, and those previously infected, to engage in social activities. Masking and social distancing our immune people prevent herd immunity.

You would be risking too much…

...as opposed to what? What are our options?

Either we implement herd immunity or we all die. That's it, these are our only options! Herd immunity has been mother nature's way of protecting mankind for eons. But now we think we know better than mother nature, and are "intentionally preventing" herd immunity by keeping our healthy immune people AWAY from this virus.

Either we take the very slight risk that some of these immune people might die from re-infection, or we all die. Those are our only choices. Which one do you pick?

Belindi, everyone seemingly wants to give "excuses" why we should not implement herd immunity. But if herd immunity is our ONLY option for survival, then why are we making "excuses"? ...what the hell are we waiting for?

[Sy Borg]

Greta, unless I'm missing it somewhere, there is nothing in the equations that Steve posted that refers to "distance".

You need to address Steve's post with the same detail he put into it, not wish it away with motherhood statements.

[LuckyR]

Steve, Greta, and others,

Let's get right to the root of this entire discussion - Irregardless of how we define (or ague about) "herd immunity" do you agree with virtually all medical experts and scientists that:

Herd immunity is our ONLY means to stop this virus.

Yes or No? - If Yes, then what the hell are we waiting for?

Who's waiting? Vaccinations are going as fast as bureaucracies can go.

RJG advocates naturally- acquired specific immunity to coronavirus:
"The more you engage in social activities with others, the quicker we can save ourselves." RJG.

By that measure the US has done the best with 27 million confirmed immune folks and perhaps another 75 million uncounted. Whoo hoo!!

[Belindi]

I've said that we get herd immunity by allowing those recently vaccinated, and those previously infected, to engage in social activities. Masking and social distancing our immune people prevent herd immunity.

You would be risking too much…

...as opposed to what? What are our options?

Either we implement herd immunity or we all die. That's it, these are our only options! Herd immunity has been mother nature's way of protecting mankind for eons. But now we think we know better than mother nature, and are "intentionally preventing" herd immunity by keeping our healthy immune people AWAY from this virus.

Either we take the very slight risk that some of these immune people might die from re-infection, or we all die. Those are our only choices. Which one do you pick?

Belindi, everyone seemingly wants to give "excuses" why we should not implement herd immunity. But if herd immunity is our ONLY option for survival, then why are we making "excuses"? ...what the hell are we waiting for?

Herd immunity is relative. God willing there is now total herd immunity from smallpox and polio. Compared with indigenous Americans before they were colonised the Europeans were relatively immune to measles.The advent of vaccination and other artificial interventions was a main cause of relative herd immunity to smallpox, measles, and pthisis.

Directed eradication and amelioration of parameters of poverty have been direct causes of relative herd immunity from all acute infectious fevers.

You should bear in mind the field of coronavirus infection is global due to how large numbers of people travel locally and around the world, plus how human respiration systems but rarely fomites are the carriers of virus.

The relative morbidity of covid is so well known you do not need to be informed of it.

Covid is a dangerous disease not only because of the danger of death to individuals. It is dangerous also because it's difficult to isolate carriers. You do not know who is a carrier and who is not. Even affluent, vaccinated, healthy- looking individuals may be potentially lethal carriers.