The Dangerous Irrationality of Masking our Vaccinated People

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
Post Reply
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: The Dangerous Irrationality of Masking our Vaccinated People

Post by LuckyR »

Who said: "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"?
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: The Dangerous Irrationality of Masking our Vaccinated People

Post by Sculptor1 »

RJG wrote: March 23rd, 2021, 1:24 pm
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?
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%
Steve3007 wrote:It self-evidently won't. As I said, viral load is a measure of virus concentration per unit volume.
The "unit volume" in this example is the "room" itself.

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.
Rubbish

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.
nope
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: The Dangerous Irrationality of Masking our Vaccinated People

Post by Sculptor1 »

LuckyR wrote: March 23rd, 2021, 4:17 pm Who said: "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"?

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.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: The Dangerous Irrationality of Masking our Vaccinated People

Post by Steve3007 »

RJG wrote:The "unit volume" in this example is the "room" itself.
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.
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.
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.

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!
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: The Dangerous Irrationality of Masking our Vaccinated People

Post by RJG »

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.
Steve3007 wrote:It is the number of particles per unit volume of air - per cubic metre or whatever.
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.

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).
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: The Dangerous Irrationality of Masking our Vaccinated People

Post by LuckyR »

Sculptor1 wrote: March 23rd, 2021, 6:24 pm
LuckyR wrote: March 23rd, 2021, 4:17 pm Who said: "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"?

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.
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
"As usual... it depends."
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: The Dangerous Irrationality of Masking our Vaccinated People

Post by Steve3007 »

As a reminder, here's that environment as you described it:
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%
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.

So, bearing that in mind:
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...
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.

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?
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.
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.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: The Dangerous Irrationality of Masking our Vaccinated People

Post by RJG »

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%
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.
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).

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.
Correct, and if we vary the number of people in the room, then the number of particles per person changes accordingly.

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?
People share the viral load. The more people in the room, the less particles there are per person to breathe in.

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.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: The Dangerous Irrationality of Masking our Vaccinated People

Post by Sculptor1 »

LuckyR wrote: March 25th, 2021, 1:53 am
Sculptor1 wrote: March 23rd, 2021, 6:24 pm
LuckyR wrote: March 23rd, 2021, 4:17 pm Who said: "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"?

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.
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
What I see here is three students.
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?
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: The Dangerous Irrationality of Masking our Vaccinated People

Post by Steve3007 »

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.
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.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: The Dangerous Irrationality of Masking our Vaccinated People

Post by Steve3007 »

Another reminder: This is not a discussion about a real-world scenario involving considerations of such things as droplets from coughs and sneezes moving through the air and then gradually settling, the lifetime of the virus outside of the human body, etc. We're considering the specific scenario set out in the quote I repeated. And, as I said earlier, I'm concentrating for now on this specific scenario and the claims that were made about it because, as I said, you put a lot of emphasis on rational, logical argument. So I see this as an exercise in thinking through a simple problem with clearly stated premises/parameters.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: The Dangerous Irrationality of Masking our Vaccinated People

Post by RJG »

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.
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.
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
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: The Dangerous Irrationality of Masking our Vaccinated People

Post by Steve3007 »

OK. Making it even simpler:

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?
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: The Dangerous Irrationality of Masking our Vaccinated People

Post by Steve3007 »

I suspect, based on past experience, that this conversation isn't going anywhere and that you're backing into a corner which you'll refuse to admit you're in, and it'll probably get all adversarial at some point. You'll probably end up telling me I'm being petty or irrelevant or some such thing. But remember: your repeated core message, across multiple topics, not just this one, is about the power of logical argument and the assertion that the logic of your arguments shows the flaws in the arguments made by the experts in the field. If you can't see the correct conclusion which flows from a simple scenario that you yourself have described then don't you think it doesn't bode well for analysing other more complex ones?
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: The Dangerous Irrationality of Masking our Vaccinated People

Post by RJG »

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. 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 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. 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: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.
Not so. The more people in the room, the less particles that you, or any one person, can breathe in.
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

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

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021