The Dangerous Irrationality of Masking our Vaccinated People
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7935
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: The Dangerous Irrationality of Masking our Vaccinated People
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: The Dangerous Irrationality of Masking our Vaccinated People
RubbishRJG wrote: ↑March 23rd, 2021, 1:24 pmRJG wrote:Imagine a virus contaminated room containing a social gathering of 6 vaccinated people and 4 vulnerable people, whereas the concentration of virus per person is equal throughout. Now remove the 6 vaccinated people from the room.
Question: Has the risk of infection (and death) to the vulnerable people gone up or gone down?Steve3007 wrote:As I said, the viral load in the environment that you've specified (amount of virus per unit volume of air) will not magically increase when vaccinated people are removed.RJG wrote:...but the viral load "per person" will certainly increase, …by 250%The "unit volume" in this example is the "room" itself.Steve3007 wrote:It self-evidently won't. As I said, viral load is a measure of virus concentration per unit volume.
For example, if we have 1000 viral airborne particles circulating within this room, then the viral concentration (or load per person) is 100 particles per person for 10 people in the room, and 250 particles per person if there were only 4 people in the room.
nope
Having the 6 vaccinated people in the room with the 4 vulnerable people not only reduces the individual risk to each vulnerable person (by sharing the total viral load among 10 people instead of 4 people), but also provides a means to safely reduce the total load. But if the vaccinated people are masked, and/or are socially distancing (kept away from the room, or away from vulnerable people) then the vulnerable people are at much greater risk of infection and death.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: The Dangerous Irrationality of Masking our Vaccinated People
Alexander Pope, But I like the Baconian version:
.. That a little knowledge is apt to puff up, and make men giddy, but a greater share of it will set them right, and bring them to low and humble thoughts of themselves.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: The Dangerous Irrationality of Masking our Vaccinated People
OK, That's clear. You're using "viral load" to simply mean the total number of particles in the room. It's a non-standard usage, but since you've clearly defined it, no problem. And you're dividing that by the number of people in the room to get what you're calling the "viral load per person". OK.RJG wrote:The "unit volume" in this example is the "room" itself.
OK, so think this through logically. In your scenario, the number which determines the level of risk to each person is not the total number of particles in the room or the total number of particles in the room divided by the number of people in the room. It is the number of particles per unit volume of air - per cubic metre or whatever. 1000 particles per cubic metre of air is more dangerous than 100 per cubic metre of air. For every breath we take we breath in roughly the same volume of air. The greater the number of particles in that unit volume of air the greater the risk.For example, if we have 1000 viral airborne particles circulating within this room, then the viral concentration (or load per person) is 100 particles per person for 10 people in the room, and 250 particles per person if there were only 4 people in the room.
Can you see that this is true?
You can see this clearly if you, say, multiply the volume of the room by 100. If that room still has the same number of particles in it then the "viral load" (as you're using that term) stays the same, but the number of particles per unit volume (e.g. per cubic metre) goes down.
Can you see the logic there?
So, as I said, removing people from the room doesn't affect the number of particles per unit volume (per cubic metre) and therefore doesn't add to the risk to those people left behind. If the number of particles per unit volume was, say, 100 per cubic metre before those 6 people left it will be 100 per cubic metre after they left too. (This is assuming we're neglecting the air that was displaced by the bodies of those 6 people! If we're not doing that, then after they leave there is slightly more air in the room so the number of particles per cubic metre of air has reduced, so the risk to the remaining 4 has actually reduced slightly).
Can you see that?
I'm concentrating on just this one point for now because if you really do think that all problems can be solved by the application of pure logic, you've got to be able to think through the logic of an argument!
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: The Dangerous Irrationality of Masking our Vaccinated People
RJG wrote:For example, if we have 1000 viral airborne particles circulating within this room, then the viral concentration (or load per person) is 100 particles per person for 10 people in the room, and 250 particles per person if there were only 4 people in the room.
I understand your point that the amount of viral particles per unit volume of air is the risk per 'one' person within this particular unit volume. But don't stop there. We also need to factor in the number of people sharing this particular unit volume (whether a "room", or a "cubic metre", or other) of air that contains viral particles. The more people sharing the viral load within this particular unit volume means less risk per individual person. For example if there are 10 viral particles in this particular unit volume (cubic metre, or other), then 5 people in this particular unit volume has less individual risk than with only 1 person in this particular unit volume. The more people sharing the viral load means less risk per person.Steve3007 wrote:It is the number of particles per unit volume of air - per cubic metre or whatever.
Also, we have to take into consideration that the viral particles within the room are not confined to any specific cubic metre, but circulate throughout the room (and in and out of each cubic metre). The viral particles are not static, they move about the room with the natural circulation of the air within the room. So a more accurate assessment of risk will be to use the entire room as the "unit volume" (since we are assuming the viral contamination is fully contained within the room; and not flying in and out of the room).
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7935
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: The Dangerous Irrationality of Masking our Vaccinated People
I am not going to argue with you. On a related note, to illustrate the pathetic state of science education, many are familiar with the lack of simple scientific knowledge even among Harvard graduates:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JXb7Oq13pjQ
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: The Dangerous Irrationality of Masking our Vaccinated People
Note: in this scenario you're claiming that the risk to the remaining people has increased due to viral concentration per vulnerable person having increased. So you're not talking here about your theory that immune people remove the virus from the environment, and there are no infected people there. So you're considering a situation where the total number of particles is constant. And you're considering the viral concentration per vulnerable person.RJG wrote:Imagine a virus contaminated room containing a social gathering of 6 vaccinated people and 4 vulnerable people, whereas the concentration of virus per person is equal throughout. Now remove the 6 vaccinated people from the room.
Question: Has the risk of infection (and death) to the vulnerable people gone up or gone down?
Answer: their risk has significantly increased; i.e. more than doubled, as the viral concentration per vulnerable person has now increased 250%
So, bearing that in mind:
No, it's not. It's the risk for everyone there. In an environment where virus particles are evenly distributed and floating through the air and no virus particles are being added or removed (i.e. the scenario you have described), regardless of the total size of that environment or the number of people in it, the risk to everyone in that environment is proportional to the density of particles - i.e. the number of particles per unit volume of air, not the density of particles divided by the total number of people.RJG wrote:I understand your point that the amount of viral particles per unit volume of air is the risk per 'one' person within this particular unit volume...
If I'm in a room with 1000000 particles per cubic metre floating around my risk is greater than if I'm in a room with 1000 particles per cubic metre floating around. If I'm sharing that environment with someone else who is not infected (so is not adding more virus to the environment), that makes no difference to the risk in that environment as you've described it. How could it? How is the presence of other people in the scenario we're considering here going to affect the number of particles I breathe in per breath?
No. If those people aren't scrubbing the virus from the air by filtering it through their lungs (which they're not), then this makes no difference.We also need to factor in the number of people sharing this particular unit volume (whether a "room", or a "cubic metre", or other) of air that contains viral particles. The more people sharing the viral load within this particular unit volume means less risk per individual person. For example if there are 10 viral particles in this particular unit volume (cubic metre, or other), then 5 people in this particular unit volume has less individual risk than with only 1 person in this particular unit volume. The more people sharing the viral load means less risk per person.
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: The Dangerous Irrationality of Masking our Vaccinated People
RJG wrote:Imagine a virus contaminated room containing a social gathering of 6 vaccinated people and 4 vulnerable people, whereas the concentration of virus per person is equal throughout. Now remove the 6 vaccinated people from the room.
Question: Has the risk of infection (and death) to the vulnerable people gone up or gone down?
Answer: their risk has significantly increased; i.e. more than doubled, as the viral concentration per vulnerable person has now increased 250%
If we remove the immune people then there are less people to share the total viral load (= more particles per person = more dangerous). And conversely, if we add immune people to the room, then there are more people to share the total viral load (= less particles per person = less dangerous).Steve3007 wrote:Note: in this scenario you're claiming that the risk to the remaining people has increased due to viral concentration per vulnerable person having increased. So you're not talking here about your theory that immune people remove the virus from the environment, and there are no infected people there. So you're considering a situation where the total number of particles is constant. And you're considering the viral concentration per vulnerable person.
Correct, and if we vary the number of people in the room, then the number of particles per person changes accordingly.Steve300 wrote:In an environment where virus particles are evenly distributed and floating through the air and no virus particles are being added or removed (i.e. the scenario you have described), regardless of the total size of that environment or the number of people in it, the risk to everyone in that environment is proportional to the density of particles - i.e. the number of particles per unit volume of air, not the density of particles divided by the total number of people.
People share the viral load. The more people in the room, the less particles there are per person to breathe in.Steve wrote:If I'm sharing that environment with someone else who is not infected (so is not adding more virus to the environment), that makes no difference to the risk in that environment as you've described it. How could it? How is the presence of other people in the scenario we're considering here going to affect the number of particles I breathe in per breath?
Imagine a mosquito flying about the room you are in. The chances of you getting bit by this mosquito reduces in half if you add another person in the room with you. The more people you add to the room, the lower your chance of getting bit.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: The Dangerous Irrationality of Masking our Vaccinated People
What I see here is three students.LuckyR wrote: ↑March 25th, 2021, 1:53 amI am not going to argue with you. On a related note, to illustrate the pathetic state of science education, many are familiar with the lack of simple scientific knowledge even among Harvard graduates:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JXb7Oq13pjQ
I wonder if it is possible to find 3 Cambridge or Oxford Students that would share the same fallacy?
I wonder how many posters on this Forum would be honest enough to admit to the same fallacy?
The viewpoint is hideously egocentric. Do they not know about Australia's "opposite" seasons?
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: The Dangerous Irrationality of Masking our Vaccinated People
Steve3007 wrote:If I'm sharing that environment with someone else who is not infected (so is not adding more virus to the environment), that makes no difference to the risk in that environment as you've described it. How could it? How is the presence of other people in the scenario we're considering here going to affect the number of particles I breathe in per breath?
So suppose I'm in a room containing 1000 particles per litre of air and suppose each of my breaths is one litre. So each breath contains, on average, 1000 particles, right? Does adding someone else to that room reduce the number of particles in each breath I breathe? If so, how? Explain to me how that works.RJG wrote:People share the viral load. The more people in the room, the less particles there are per person to breathe in.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: The Dangerous Irrationality of Masking our Vaccinated People
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: The Dangerous Irrationality of Masking our Vaccinated People
Steve3007 wrote:If I'm sharing that environment with someone else who is not infected (so is not adding more virus to the environment), that makes no difference to the risk in that environment as you've described it. How could it? How is the presence of other people in the scenario we're considering here going to affect the number of particles I breathe in per breath?
RJG wrote:People share the viral load. The more people in the room, the less particles there are per person to breathe in.
Yes, adding more people in the room reduces the density of particles per litre in the air per person to a lower number because the total number of viral particles is fixed, and there are only so many viral particles to go around and be shared amongst all the people. For example, if there are only 1000 particles (fixed quantity) in the air, then not everyone in the the room can breathe in 1000 particles. 2 people could breathe in 500 each, and 10 people could breathe in 100 each. And the more people in the room the lower number of particles-per-person.Steve3007 wrote:So suppose I'm in a room containing 1000 particles per litre of air and suppose each of my breaths is one litre. So each breath contains, on average, 1000 particles, right? Does adding someone else to that room reduce the number of particles in each breath I breathe? If so, how? Explain to me how that works.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: The Dangerous Irrationality of Masking our Vaccinated People
With just me in the room, there are 1000 particles per litre of air. Each of my breaths is 1 litre of air. So each breath contains, on average, 1000 particles.
With another person in the room, there are still 1000 particles per litre of air. Each of my breaths is still 1 litre of air. So each breath still contains, on average, 1000 particles.
Do we agree on that?
If, both before and after that other person enters the room, I am breathing in 1000 particles per breathe then the risk to me is the same both before and after that other person enters the room.
Can you really not see that, in this very simple scenario that you've outlined, that is true?
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: The Dangerous Irrationality of Masking our Vaccinated People
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: The Dangerous Irrationality of Masking our Vaccinated People
Not so. Each breath removes from the total number of fixed particles from the room. Therefore, on each subsequent breath, you will breathe in a lower number of particles.Steve3007 wrote:With just me in the room, there are 1000 particles per litre of air. Each of my breaths is 1 litre of air. So each breath contains, on average, 1000 particles.
Not so. If you add another person to the room, then he/she is also removing from the grand total of particles in the room, thereby accelerating the lowering of particles that can be breathed by any one person in the room.Steve3007 wrote:With another person in the room, there are still 1000 particles per litre of air. Each of my breaths is still 1 litre of air. So each breath still contains, on average, 1000 particles. Do we agree on that?
Not so. The more people in the room, the less particles that you, or any one person, can breathe in.Steve3007 wrote:If, both before and after that other person enters the room, I am breathing in 1000 particles per breathe then the risk to me is the same both before and after that other person enters the room.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023