MOSQUITO ANALOGY

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

Re: MOSQUITO ANALOGY

Post by RJG »

AverageBozo wrote:Yes, but is the hyperbole necessary? “Largest mistake”? “Hundreds of millions “?
AB, I don't think this is "hyperbole". Seriously.

Time (history) will tell if this was the "largest man-made error", resulting in deaths and destruction of so many lives, which includes deaths, serious illness, financial, physical, and mental destruction to "hundreds of millions" of humans on this planet.

All of this could have been prevented on day one, by not initially masking and social distancing our large (at that time) healthy population. We have dug a massively deep hole for ourselves and it will be many more years (with many more deaths and destruction) before we begin to dig our way out of this mess, ...that is, if we ever come to our senses and realize the great self-destructive harm we are doing to ourselves.

In other words, the virus (and deaths) are not going away until we realize our foolishness. [Fingers crossed] 🤞 that we do, and soon.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: MOSQUITO ANALOGY

Post by GE Morton »

RJG wrote: December 24th, 2021, 9:05 am
LuckyR wrote:More importantly since a single cough puts 120,000 virus particles into the air at 10 seconds, slapping one mosquito would still leave 119,999 mosquitoes to bite the elderly woman. Unless of course the infected person coughed twice, in which case there would be 239,999 mosquitoes in the room with the elderly woman.
Again, check the science, not the scare-media. It is extremely rare for healthy immune people to cough up mosquitoes (replicate and spread viral particles). There is more risk to vulnerable people without healthy unmasked people around, than with them.

Although one must inhale a minimum of 1000 viral particles before an infection can occur, but nonetheless, it does not matter how many viral particles/mosquitos are in the room. It is just simple math/statistics. If you add one more person to the room, it reduces the risk in half (doubles her safety!).
That is incorrect. If there are more than 2000 virus particles in the room the woman's odds with another person in the room are the same. If there are 120,000 particles in the room her odds are the same if 120 people are in the room --- unless some of those 120 are infected and adding more virus particles to the room, in which case her odds are worse.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: MOSQUITO ANALOGY

Post by RJG »

RJG wrote:Although one must inhale a minimum of 1000 viral particles before an infection can occur, but nonetheless, it does not matter how many viral particles/mosquitos are in the room. It is just simple math/statistics. If you add one more person to the room, it reduces the risk in half (doubles her safety!).
GE Morton wrote:That is incorrect. If there are more than 2000 virus particles in the room the woman's odds with another person in the room are the same.
GE, this is not right. The individual risk (or odds of infection) proportionally decrease as the number of people sharing this risk increase. The basic Risk Assessment Equation (to calculate individual risk) is: Total Risk divided by the Number of People sharing that risk = Individual Risk.

GE Morton wrote:If there are 120,000 particles in the room her odds are the same if 120 people are in the room…
Not so. In this scenario...

P1. If alone in the room, then her odds of getting infected are 12,000:1 odds*.
P2. If 120 people are in the room, then her odds of getting infected are 100:1 odds**.
C1. Therefore, she is significantly safer (120X !!) with people in the room (sharing the same environment).

C2. And therefore, if we were to UNMASK these 120 people (with the lady being masked), (thereby disproportionately sharing the total viral load), then her safety would then further improve at least 10 fold, well over 1000X safer !!!

C3. And therefore, now imagine, that if we remove (socially distance) these 120 unmasked people, ...she is now 1000X more likely to die.

* 12,000 groups of 1,000 particles, divided by 1 person = 12,000:1 odds.
** 12,000 groups of 1,000 particles, divided by 120 people = 100:1 odds.

*************************
So hopefully, now you can see the DEADLY effects of "masking and social distancing" our healthy immune (and vaccinated) population. Continuing with masking and social distancing of our healthy population only digs a deeper hole; allows more infections (and deaths), allowing the virus to perpetuate unabated; continually mutating into potentially more contagious and deadly variants. Vaccinations, by themselves, will not help. They are totally useless; ineffective if we keep allowing the virus to mutate (we can't develop new vaccines/boosters at a faster rate that we are allowing the new variants).

"1 step forward, 2 steps back" only puts us in a deeper hole (further back).
AverageBozo
Posts: 502
Joined: May 11th, 2021, 11:20 am

Re: MOSQUITO ANALOGY

Post by AverageBozo »

RJG wrote: December 28th, 2021, 1:49 pm
AverageBozo wrote:Yes, but is the hyperbole necessary? “Largest mistake”? “Hundreds of millions “?
AB, I don't think this is "hyperbole". Seriously.

Time (history) will tell if this was the "largest man-made error", resulting in deaths and destruction of so many lives, which includes deaths, serious illness, financial, physical, and mental destruction to "hundreds of millions" of humans on this planet.

All of this could have been prevented on day one, by not initially masking and social distancing our large (at that time) healthy population. We have dug a massively deep hole for ourselves and it will be many more years (with many more deaths and destruction) before we begin to dig our way out of this mess, ...that is, if we ever come to our senses and realize the great self-destructive harm we are doing to ourselves.

In other words, the virus (and deaths) are not going away until we realize our foolishness. [Fingers crossed] 🤞 that we do, and soon.
What will happen if social distancing and masking of healthy young people were curtailed at this point? Will the net effect be the same as it would have been had this course been implemented from the outset? Could the expense of further vaccinations be spared going forward? Would quarantines be necessary anymore?
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: MOSQUITO ANALOGY

Post by RJG »

AverageBozo wrote:What will happen if social distancing and masking of healthy young people were curtailed at this point?
If we can now stop the social distancing and masking of our healthy people, then we have a chance to save ourselves.

AverageBozo wrote:Will the net effect be the same as it would have been had this course been implemented from the outset?
No. Not only has our army of available healthy people, needed to stop this fire (virus), dwindled, but the fire has gotten bigger. It will be much tougher to stop the bigger wildfire with fewer available fire extinguishers (healthy people). We've got a lot of hole to climb out of.

At the beginning of this virus, we had more than enough healthy people to extinguish this fire. But we did the absolute worst thing possible - we ran and hid our fire extinguishers away from the fire (we socially distanced and masked our healthy population), allowing the fire to continually grow and consume lives (vulnerable people).

AverageBozo wrote:Could the expense of further vaccinations be spared going forward?
Yes, assuming that we (and the rest of the countries of the world) act swiftly in promoting and encouraging all healthy people (especially the healthy 'vaccinated' people!!!) to immediately unmask and fully socialize.

If I were Fauci/Biden, I would immediately put together a marketing campaign to encourage our health population to unmask and fully socialize asap to help stop this virus. Hopefully most other countries will follow our lead and do the same likewise.

But being realistic and knowing that the human ego is such a driving force in some of us humans, I doubt Fauci/Biden would ever admit to this fatal error in logic (unless they can find a scapegoat!), even at the cost of further deaths and destruction to the lives of us all. They are still human after all.

AverageBozo wrote:Would quarantines be necessary anymore?
Quarantining, social distancing, and masking are ONLY for VULNERABLE people (those with underlying conditions that are susceptible to the ill effects of covid). Socially isolating (/quarantining/masking) healthy people only makes the fire grow bigger!

If you are vulnerable (even if vaccinated!), I think it is wise to continue reasonable social isolation until the fire is put out by our fire extinguishers (healthy population).
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: MOSQUITO ANALOGY

Post by Sculptor1 »

America who has only 4% of the world's population seems to have 25% of the world's mosquitos.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: MOSQUITO ANALOGY

Post by GE Morton »

RJG wrote: December 28th, 2021, 3:59 pm
RJG wrote:Although one must inhale a minimum of 1000 viral particles before an infection can occur, but nonetheless, it does not matter how many viral particles/mosquitos are in the room. It is just simple math/statistics. If you add one more person to the room, it reduces the risk in half (doubles her safety!).
GE Morton wrote:That is incorrect. If there are more than 2000 virus particles in the room the woman's odds with another person in the room are the same.
GE, this is not right. The individual risk (or odds of infection) proportionally decrease as the number of people sharing this risk increase. The basic Risk Assessment Equation (to calculate individual risk) is: Total Risk divided by the Number of People sharing that risk = Individual Risk.
That's true, but the Total Risk is not constant, and you're arguing as though it is. If there are 1000 virus particles and one person in the room that person's risk is X. If there are 120,000 particles and 120 people, one person's risk is still X.
P1. If alone in the room, then her odds of getting infected are 12,000:1 odds*.
P2. If 120 people are in the room, then her odds of getting infected are 100:1 odds**.
C1. Therefore, she is significantly safer (120X !!) with people in the room (sharing the same environment).
Nope. With both scenarios each person's risk of infection is 100%. (We do need to make some assumptions here, such as that there in no time limit on viral viability or residence in the room, and that all of the subjects have equal natural immunity).
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: MOSQUITO ANALOGY

Post by RJG »

RJG wrote:The basic Risk Assessment Equation (to calculate individual risk) is: Total Risk divided by the Number of People sharing that risk = Individual Risk.
GE Morton wrote:That's true, but the Total Risk is not constant, and you're arguing as though it is.
It does not matter if the Total Risk is "constant" or "varying". This does not change the logical/mathematical relationship of reduced individual risk with an increase in people, ...i.e. the more people sharing the total risk (whatever it is) the lower the individual risk.

For any given room/environment, the quantity of viral particles (Total Risk) is "constant" until someone changes that quantity (adds or removes viral particles to/from this room/environment).

GE Morton wrote:If there are 1000 virus particles and one person in the room that person's risk is X.
Yes, agreed. If 1,000 viral particles are in the room with 1 person (and 1,000 particles represent 1X), then each person's risk = 1X / 1 = 1X.

GE Morton wrote:If there are 120,000 particles and 120 people, one person's risk is still X.
Yes, agreed. If 120,000 viral particles are in the room with 120 people (and 1,000 particles represent X), then each person's risk = 120X / 120 = 1X.

BUT, if the room is contaminated with 120,000 viral particles with only 1 person in the room, then each person's risk = 120X/1 = 120X.
-the less people sharing the total risk, the greater the individual risk.

GE Morton" wrote:Nope. With both scenarios each person's risk of infection is 100%. (We do need to make some assumptions here, such as that there in no time limit on viral viability or residence in the room, and that all of the subjects have equal natural immunity).
GE, it doesn't matter at what time, or when, or how many particles/people there are. We still can't get away from the basic fact that the more people sharing the total risk (whatever it may be), the lower the individual risk.
AverageBozo
Posts: 502
Joined: May 11th, 2021, 11:20 am

Re: MOSQUITO ANALOGY

Post by AverageBozo »

@RJG

On what platforms other than this, and to which governmental officials, have you, or will you, present the need for vaccinated healthy young people?
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: MOSQUITO ANALOGY

Post by GE Morton »

RJG wrote: December 29th, 2021, 7:45 am
GE Morton wrote:If there are 1000 virus particles and one person in the room that person's risk is X.
Yes, agreed. If 1,000 viral particles are in the room with 1 person (and 1,000 particles represent 1X), then each person's risk = 1X / 1 = 1X.
GE Morton wrote:If there are 120,000 particles and 120 people, one person's risk is still X.
Yes, agreed. If 120,000 viral particles are in the room with 120 people (and 1,000 particles represent X), then each person's risk = 120X / 120 = 1X.

BUT, if the room is contaminated with 120,000 viral particles with only 1 person in the room, then each person's risk = 120X/1 = 120X.
-the less people sharing the total risk, the greater the individual risk.
GE Morton" wrote:Nope. With both scenarios each person's risk of infection is 100%. (We do need to make some assumptions here, such as that there in no time limit on viral viability or residence in the room, and that all of the subjects have equal natural immunity).
GE, it doesn't matter at what time, or when, or how many particles/people there are. We still can't get away from the basic fact that the more people sharing the total risk (whatever it may be), the lower the individual risk.
That is true. But if the total risk is larger, such as from a greater number of virus particles, and the number of possible victims is proportionately larger, then their risks are the same. Risks are reduced for each person only if the viral load is held constant.

And, of course, the more people you add to the room the more likely you will increase the viral load in that room.

BTW, the person in the room with 120,000 virus particles is not at 120X the risk of the person with only 1000 particles in the room. If 1000 is a sufficient viral load to cause infection, then his risk is already at 100%. The remaining 119,000 particles are superfluous and don't increase his risks.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: MOSQUITO ANALOGY

Post by RJG »

AverageBozo wrote:On what platforms other than this, and to which governmental officials, have you, or will you, present the need for vaccinated healthy young people?
I haven't presented to anyone (yet). The immediate need is to encourage healthy people to unmask and socialize asap. Healthy people need to defy these foolish and dangerously destructive mask (and social distancing) mandates.

**********
RJG wrote:Total Risk divided by the Number of People sharing that risk = Individual Risk.
GE Morton wrote:But if the total risk is larger, such as from a greater number of virus particles, and the number of possible victims is proportionately larger, then their risks are the same.
...yes, as per the Risk Assessment equation above.

GE Morton wrote:Risks are reduced for each person only if the viral load is held constant.
Not so. Risk can also be reduced if viral load is decreased with the number of people held constant or increased, or risk can also be reduced if viral load is increased with the number of people increasing proportionally more.

In other words, the individual risk is determined as per the risk equation, ...which can be affected (up or down) by the other two variables.

GE Morton wrote:And, of course, the more people you add to the room the more likely you will increase the viral load in that room.
If you add vulnerable infected people, then yes. But if you add healthy immune people then no.

GE Morton wrote:BTW, the person in the room with 120,000 virus particles is not at 120X the risk of the person with only 1000 particles in the room.
Of course they are. The more viral particles in the room, the greater the risk/chance of infection.

GE Morton wrote:If 1000 is a sufficient viral load to cause infection, then his risk is already at 100%.
Not so. 1X risk does NOT mean 100% certainty of being infected.
AverageBozo
Posts: 502
Joined: May 11th, 2021, 11:20 am

Re: MOSQUITO ANALOGY

Post by AverageBozo »

RJG wrote: December 30th, 2021, 1:00 am
AverageBozo wrote:On what platforms other than this, and to which governmental officials, have you, or will you, present the need for vaccinated healthy young people?
I haven't presented to anyone (yet). The immediate need is to encourage healthy people to unmask and socialize asap. Healthy people need to defy these foolish and dangerously destructive mask (and social distancing) mandates.
Shouldn’t you reach out to healthy people who are not forum readers?

I suggest omitting language that may be interpreted by some as alarmist or hyperbole, eg, the phrases I called your attention to earlier.

You may be correct, but if you sound like an alarmist, you may sound like a crockpot.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: MOSQUITO ANALOGY

Post by RJG »

RJG wrote:The immediate need is to encourage healthy people to unmask and socialize asap. Healthy people need to defy these foolish and dangerously destructive mask (and social distancing) mandates.
AverageBozo wrote:Shouldn’t you reach out to healthy people who are not forum readers?
It seems most people have already formed (have already been given) their beliefs on this topic. The constant daily bombardment of sloppy science, false propaganda, news, and the powerful control of "fear", has firmly implanted (brainwashed) people into falsely believing that masking and social distancing can only be 'good' (...and never actually 'bad').

It is tough, maybe impossible, to convince someone that this pre-conditioned belief is wrong (...especially when created out of "fear"). The typical counter arguments I have received are ad hominem attacks because they lack the rationale to explain their indoctrinated belief, …which should be a tip-off that maybe their belief is not as sound as they may think. Instead of trying to at least consider the logic of the situation, most prefer to passionately defend their indoctrinated belief.

AverageBozo wrote:I suggest omitting language that may be interpreted by some as alarmist or hyperbole, eg, the phrases I called your attention to earlier. You may be correct, but if you sound like an alarmist, you may sound like a crockpot.
Agreed. But I think there is a fine line between getting someone's attention and being an alarmist. We must "alarm" them enough to even have them consider the possibility that they may be wrong, but without sounding too much like an alarmist or "crackpot" or a "conspiracy theorist".

Once a belief is firmly implanted in someone's mind, it is next to impossible for them to believe otherwise. But there are some open-minded exceptions (e.g. you AB), but not enough to make a difference and turn this ship around. I am just hopeful that many people will defy these dangerous mandates (for whatever reason!) so that we can save ourselves; and make this virus go away.

Blind Adherence to Sloppy Science will kill us all.
AverageBozo
Posts: 502
Joined: May 11th, 2021, 11:20 am

Re: MOSQUITO ANALOGY

Post by AverageBozo »

RJG wrote: December 30th, 2021, 12:36 pm Blind Adherence to Sloppy Science will kill us all.
Blind Adherence to Sloppy Science will result in unnecessary deaths

I share your realization that strongly held beliefs cannot be changed in most cases.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: MOSQUITO ANALOGY

Post by RJG »

AverageBozo wrote:Blind Adherence to Sloppy Science will result in unnecessary deaths.
Yes. This is a better way to put it. Thanks AB for keeping me in check.
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