Aug 16, 2020 -- 12:05PM, Charlie wrote:
lfc1971 • August 16, 2020 5:37 PM BSTNo one who is immune , ( cocooned) will die obviouslyCocooned isn't the same as immunised.
I'll repeat that in case you missed it.
Aug 16, 2020 -- 12:08PM, lfc1971 wrote:
ok , no answer from Charlie That’s ok , sometimes the question is more important than the answer more revealing., more beautiful ( have to check the rangers match )
Start taking your medication again.
Aug 16, 2020 -- 6:09PM, lfc1971 wrote:
here’s a little clue , immunity and isolation are obviously the same thing
Here’s a little clue? You haven’t got even a ghost of a clue to offer on this one by this point. Immunity and isolation are utterly different things. Try looking them both up and see whether any online resource you try thinks they are. I could reiterate the points I’ve already made about the problems with the R0 definition but it would be wasted effort.
Aug 17, 2020 -- 6:19PM, lfc1971 wrote:
You’ll have to explain why they are different take your time ...
Will I? Okay. as I’m sitting with my children, who’ve woken me up:
Immunity is a function of the immune system protecting the body against the effects of an infection and also against its spread. This arise from prior infection or vaccination.
Isolation is remaining apart from social contact. This reduces the spread of infectious diseases.
Neither of these necessarily completely protects against infection. In the case of complete isolation, this is only really possible in theory, as in Charlie’s example and immunity is often partial too. It’s fair to say that we don’t yet know how effective previous infection is at preventing new Covid infections and spread, although with the current strain that’s circulating, probably at least moderately effective. We obviously don’t yet know how efficacious vaccines will be either.
Is that helpful? That two things can cause the same outcome in one respect doesn’t make them the same. As far s definitions of R0 go, all of them exclude populations with natural or artificial immunity, some exclude isolation by excluding behaviour change and some don’t. I’ve discussed this at some length before.
Aug 18, 2020 -- 1:21AM, lfc1971 wrote:
Oh and here is the question , again Charlie couldn’t answer it and it seems you cannot either Have you any idea why they mention a state where no one is immunised ?If you want to know R0
Yes, I do know why they mention this, as would be blindingly apparent if you’d understood my many posts discussing R0 and the importance of whether you use the definition that excludes behaviour change or the one which doesn’t. Based on the definition that excludes behavioural change, you somewhat have a point overall but you are just so obviously wrong about isolation and immunity being the same that it’s hilarious. I get, as does Charlie, that in certain contexts they can have the same result. That doesn’t make them the same thing, which is obvious in and of itself and even more obvious once you read the definition of R0, which I would suggest you do again but I fear it would be futile, because you obviously don’t properly understand it. Try a different thought experiment though, which works just fine with the stricter definition too:
What’s the R0 in a society which is almost entirely rural, with at most small settlements, very limited contact between distant groups and no crowding whatsoever? Is this the same as a society that is mostly urban and crowded into limited space, with frequent large gatherings? Take as long as you want.
Aug 18, 2020 -- 7:40AM, Charlie wrote:
lfc you're squirming again and trying to redefine words.Another thought experiment. Imagine two populations A and B. Both are covid free except for one individual in each population who has covid. In both populations individuals are fully isolated from everyone else as before. Everyone (except the person with covid) in population A is vaccinated against covid and are immune. Population B are not inoculated and all individuals are susceptible to infection. We then lift the isolation and allow people to mingle with other people in their own population. People are actively encouraged to meet the person with covid without any attempt to prevent infection.Which population is likely to end up with more cases of covid?
Which population is likely to end up with more cases of covid?
Aug 19, 2020 -- 1:39AM, Charlie wrote:
My first thought experiment was solely designed to prove that R0 does not measure the inherent contagiousness of a virus as lfc maintained.Charlie • August 16, 2020 11:33 AM BSTA little thought experiment should help explain why R0 does not measure the inherent contagiousness of a virus.Something it did admirably. And by the way there was no change in the population's behaviour. My second thought experiment was designed to prove this wrong: lfc1971 • August 17, 2020 12:09 AM BSThere’s a little clue , immunity and isolation are obviously the same thingIf they were the same thing then both populations would be equally likely to catch covid when isolation was lifted but we know that's not true.
Fair points but your original thought experiment was rather obviously a non real world example. In that sense the behaviour described was a change from any previous human behaviour. But okay, that’s allowed in thought experiments. Certainly better than experiments in demonstrating inability to think anyway.