Should we ignore, or even resist any government implemented quarantine for corona virus?

piloteer

Here it comes!!!!!!!!

ZeusAres42

You make a good point. I guess that if we become infected then we should go in quarantine anyway just to be on the safe side and to be courteous to others. However, being courteous to others depends on you and your moral grounding. With that being said I do happen to believe that the media and others are making this sound far worse than what it actually is.

The highest number of cases and the highest death toll are in China and other countries near there. This is also understandable due to these being developing countries, having poor hygiene standards as well as a huge population that outweighs the ability to quickly and efficiently treat everyone affected.

In the UK there are currently 23 confirmed cases out of 10,483 tested of which only one died so far since late 2019. Now, we also need to bear in mind that the UK has a population of about 70 million. I guess that kind of puts it into perspective. Also, there are 990 cases of people being diagnosed with cancer every day and there are 440 cancer deaths in the UK every day. But we hardly ever hear anything about these things which are far more prevalent. 

Ampersand

The death percentage is likely 1-2% that's not massive but in a pandemic scenario still relates to millions of deaths. Also it doesn't take into account that with tends or hundreds of people infected as in a pandemic scenario, the way is open for evolution and mutation. The Spanish Flu in 1918-20 killed around 50 million people which with today's higher population would amount to around 200 million deaths. The first spread of the disease actually had a relatively low mortality compared to the spread in 2019 where it appeared to have mutated to be much more deadly.

Without any strong reason to, there is no rationale for ignoring a government's call to quarantine. While we may value our own individual freedom, that is a fairly moot philosophical issue in comparison to ourselves and the people we love dying of a preventable disease.

ZeusAres42

Ampersand said:

The death percentage is likely 1-2% that's not massive but in a pandemic scenario still relates to millions of deaths. Also it doesn't take into account that with tends or hundreds of people infected as in a pandemic scenario, the way is open for evolution and mutation. The Spanish Flu in 1918-20 killed around 50 million people which with today's higher population would amount to around 200 million deaths. The first spread of the disease actually had a relatively low mortality compared to the spread in 2019 where it appeared to have mutated to be much more deadly.

Without any strong reason to, there is no rationale for ignoring a government's call to quarantine. While we may value our own individual freedom, that is a fairly moot philosophical issue in comparison to ourselves and the people we love dying of a preventable disease.

@Ampersand I would just like to chime in here. I think people are forgetting about the Swine Flu in 2009 that was also a pandemic, the second pandemic being the one after the Spanish Flu in 1918. The coronavirus is now the third pandemic since 1918. I would also like to point out that things were a lot different in 1918 than what they are now. The medical professions during that time was not even half able to handling these outbreaks as what they are today. And again, hygiene standards would have been a lot poorer during these times.

piloteer

Ampersand said:

The death percentage is likely 1-2% that's not massive but in a pandemic scenario still relates to millions of deaths. Also it doesn't take into account that with tends or hundreds of people infected as in a pandemic scenario, the way is open for evolution and mutation. The Spanish Flu in 1918-20 killed around 50 million people which with today's higher population would amount to around 200 million deaths. The first spread of the disease actually had a relatively low mortality compared to the spread in 2019 where it appeared to have mutated to be much more deadly.

Without any strong reason to, there is no rationale for ignoring a government's call to quarantine. While we may value our own individual freedom, that is a fairly moot philosophical issue in comparison to ourselves and the people we love dying of a preventable disease.

I am in no way arguing that we should not be concerned for our loved ones or people who live in countries with less than admirable health care services. I am not a misanthrope in any manner. Regardless of how robust a countries health care services are, it doesn't change the percentage of deaths which is still less than 2%. I'm merely questioning the effectiveness of a quarantine and whether it can actually stop the vast majority of the global population from being infected. If it cannot, what is the point of a quarantine anyway? It seems the only true effect a quarantine could have is to exacerbate needless panic.

 The virus is already starting to wane in China and South Korea. Last month, Starbucks closed most of its stores in China because of the virus. This week, Starbucks have already reopened most of those stores in China because of the overstated bad news regarding the virus. This debate isn't a call to arms to defend our liberty to move freely, it's a valid question regarding the effectiveness of a quarantine since we will all be infected eventually anyway. The only thing a quarantine might be effective at is stalling the inevitable.   

As far as the virus "mutating", that is always a topic of concern, but it's not as simple or as likely as one would think, and it could just as easily mutate to become an even less dangerous virus. The idea of the virus "mutating" is the real moot point here. The rhino virus always has a chance to "mutate" and become a monster virus capable of killing most of the infectees, but for now we still just recognize it for what it really is- a cold.       

ZeusAres42

There are about 85,000 global cases. And what might put this into even more perspective is that there are more than six billion people on the planet.

piloteer

@ZeusAres42

I am all for courtesy and what not, but if it's inevitable that we'll all be infected, what's the use of a quarantine? In all likelihood, a vaccine is several months, or even years away, and there's no guarantee it will work at all. It seems the best method for building an antibody to this virus is to accept the inevitable and wait for infection. We will make our own antibody for this one. I'm sure most of us here have had swine flu. Corona virus is just a new one for us all to become immune to!! 

piloteer

Huh. I seem to be feeling a tad feverish all the sudden. Is it just me, or does anybody else feel a sore throat coming on? 

ZeusAres42

@piloteer

Funnily enough, if I remember correctly, it turned out that swine flu was later revealed not to be as bad as what was originally thought.

Ampersand

piloteer said:

Ampersand said:

The death percentage is likely 1-2% that's not massive but in a pandemic scenario still relates to millions of deaths. Also it doesn't take into account that with tends or hundreds of people infected as in a pandemic scenario, the way is open for evolution and mutation. The Spanish Flu in 1918-20 killed around 50 million people which with today's higher population would amount to around 200 million deaths. The first spread of the disease actually had a relatively low mortality compared to the spread in 2019 where it appeared to have mutated to be much more deadly.

Without any strong reason to, there is no rationale for ignoring a government's call to quarantine. While we may value our own individual freedom, that is a fairly moot philosophical issue in comparison to ourselves and the people we love dying of a preventable disease.

I am in no way arguing that we should not be concerned for our loved ones or people who live in countries with less than admirable health care services. I am not a misanthrope in any manner. Regardless of how robust a countries health care services are, it doesn't change the percentage of deaths which is still less than 2%. I'm merely questioning the effectiveness of a quarantine and whether it can actually stop the vast majority of the global population from being infected. If it cannot, what is the point of a quarantine anyway? It seems the only true effect a quarantine could have is to exacerbate needless panic.

 The virus is already starting to wane in China and South Korea. Last month, Starbucks closed most of its stores in China because of the virus. This week, Starbucks have already reopened most of those stores in China because of the overstated bad news regarding the virus. This debate isn't a call to arms to defend our liberty to move freely, it's a valid question regarding the effectiveness of a quarantine since we will all be infected eventually anyway. The only thing a quarantine might be effective at is stalling the inevitable.   

As far as the virus "mutating", that is always a topic of concern, but it's not as simple or as likely as one would think, and it could just as easily mutate to become an even less dangerous virus. The idea of the virus "mutating" is the real moot point here. The rhino virus always has a chance to "mutate" and become a monster virus capable of killing most of the infectees, but for now we still just recognize it for what it really is- a cold.       

The thing is, a 2% mortality rate is still a hell of a lot of dead people if we end up with hundreds of millions of people infected which is what the quarantine is meant to prevent.

You point to the virus starting to wane in China, but that's happening due to a very strict quarantine procedure throughout the effected areas (see https://nypost.com/2020/02/29/what-its-like-living-semi-quarantined-amid-coronavirus-outbreak-in-china/  for an example of the server restrictions on movements imposed on people several hundred miles away from the outbreak). The wane of the virus in China isn't happening because the virus isn't a concern, but because of those very quarantine measures that you're arguing against.

You can't simultaneously argue that quarantines are effective and then hold out an example of quarantines being effective, which is what you're doing with the example of China. The two are mutually exclusive. Also South Korea has today had another record breaking day of coronavirus infections, so it is in no way on the decline there.

Also I don't see the logic to the virus mutating to a less deadly form. If the virus mutates to a less deadly form (Lasts for shorter periods, less symptomatic, etc), then I would assume the changes which make it less deadly would also make it spread less easily and be out-competed by the original version.

@Ampersand I would just like to chime in here. I think people are forgetting about the Swine Flu in 2009 that was also a pandemic, the second pandemic being the one after the Spanish Flu in 1918. The coronavirus is now the third pandemic since 1918. I would also like to point out that things were a lot different in 1918 than what they are now. The medical professions during that time was not even half able to handling these outbreaks as what they are today. And again, hygiene standards would have been a lot poorer during these times.

The thing is, the methods of the contagion spread have also increased due to the popularity of air travel and even the easy access to cars and commuter services within countries (Remember, in 1918 people were far more anchored to a single place than they are now). I honestly don't know which has a bigger impact, but we can't simply assume we're safer.

MayCaesar

You are not going to be able to get away with it in most cases. Right now virtually all quarantines are maintained by the Chinese government, and it does not play around: if it catches you breaking through the quarantine, no clever tongue is going to help you. I have two Chinese friends affected by this, and the thought of breaking through the quarantine does not even cross their minds.

The best way to avoid this problem seems to be to live in a civilised country, where cities are not quarantined over a minor outbreak.

piloteer

@Ampersand

If the point of a quarantine is to isolate the infected and stop the spread of the illness, I've got a little secret for you. It hasn't worked at all. As soon as the medical community realized that people can have the virus for up to two weeks without any symptoms, and still spread it, they knew it couldn't be contained in any manner. Other than the WHO or the CDC, most medical experts have been saying with clear certainty that the virus will not be contained. That's been the consensus for the better part of three weeks now. As soon as the true nature of the virus was learned, it was a given that it could not be contained. 

 The government agencies that oversee the policies of containing viruses have a very difficult balancing act when it comes to addressing the public about the details of the virus. They cannot just come out and say, "this will not be contained", because they have to keep the public's fears in mind as well. But they do not have the authority (yet) to censor the insights of other medical experts not associated with the government agencies. Those experts have been saying for a long time that it cannot be contained. 

If it's true that the virus cannot be contained, and the likelihood of everybody getting the virus is very high, what good will a quarantine do anyway? In all probability, this will either become a pandemic that affects most of the global population, or it will become a seasonal virus like the flu. A quarantine will not stop either of those possibilities from happening. If it becomes a seasonal illness like the Spanish flu did, then a vaccine is the only viable method for stopping the spread of the illness. But that could be months, or even years away, and there's never a guarantee it will work. 

You would really need to provide us with solid medical proof to show us that the true reason the number of infections in China is dropping is because of their quarantine. That medical proof is not something that is even known to the medical community yet, so your argument that the quarantine is what is causing the drop in infection rates is pure speculation. Another reason the infections are dropping could be because the manner in which the virus is spread is changing. It could be turning into the seasonal virus that I spoke of earlier, and that's why the infection rate is dropping. 

I believe the only reason for implementing a quarantine is so government agencies cover their tracks. If the public is scared of it, the government agencies overseeing the response to the virus may be accused of not being proactive in a situation when public fear reins supreme. But I am arguing that a quarantine will only serve to exacerbate public fear in the face of a virus that is inevitable and not as bad as some portray it to be. If it does become a pandemic (which most medical experts say it is), then the genie is already out of the bottle and we will all get it regardless. If it becomes a seasonal virus, then a quarantine would also not be viable option  because we'd need to stay under quarantine until a vaccine is made, and that could take years and may not work. Our efforts should be focused on a vaccine, not quarantine.                          

Ampersand

piloteer said:

@Ampersand

If the point of a quarantine is to isolate the infected and stop the spread of the illness, I've got a little secret for you. It hasn't worked at all. As soon as the medical community realized that people can have the virus for up to two weeks without any symptoms, and still spread it, they knew it couldn't be contained in any manner. Other than the WHO or the CDC, most medical experts have been saying with clear certainty that the virus will not be contained. That's been the consensus for the better part of three weeks now. As soon as the true nature of the virus was learned, it was a given that it could not be contained. 

 The government agencies that oversee the policies of containing viruses have a very difficult balancing act when it comes to addressing the public about the details of the virus. They cannot just come out and say, "this will not be contained", because they have to keep the public's fears in mind as well. But they do not have the authority (yet) to censor the insights of other medical experts not associated with the government agencies. Those experts have been saying for a long time that it cannot be contained. 

If it's true that the virus cannot be contained, and the likelihood of everybody getting the virus is very high, what good will a quarantine do anyway? In all probability, this will either become a pandemic that affects most of the global population, or it will become a seasonal virus like the flu. A quarantine will not stop either of those possibilities from happening. If it becomes a seasonal illness like the Spanish flu did, then a vaccine is the only viable method for stopping the spread of the illness. But that could be months, or even years away, and there's never a guarantee it will work. 

You would really need to provide us with solid medical proof to show us that the true reason the number of infections in China is dropping is because of their quarantine. That medical proof is not something that is even known to the medical community yet, so your argument that the quarantine is what is causing the drop in infection rates is pure speculation. Another reason the infections are dropping could be because the manner in which the virus is spread is changing. It could be turning into the seasonal virus that I spoke of earlier, and that's why the infection rate is dropping. 

I believe the only reason for implementing a quarantine is so government agencies cover their tracks. If the public is scared of it, the government agencies overseeing the response to the virus may be accused of not being proactive in a situation when public fear reins supreme. But I am arguing that a quarantine will only serve to exacerbate public fear in the face of a virus that is inevitable and not as bad as some portray it to be. If it does become a pandemic (which most medical experts say it is), then the genie is already out of the bottle and we will all get it regardless. If it becomes a seasonal virus, then a quarantine would also not be viable option  because we'd need to stay under quarantine until a vaccine is made, and that could take years and may not work. Our efforts should be focused on a vaccine, not quarantine.                          

Except quarantine has very obviously worked. Look at the rates of infection by province in China. No other place in China has had as high a proportion of cases as Wuhan, the place where it had a chance to spread without quarantine procedures in effect, and the rate of infection and death is relatively quickly dying down from the highs that existed weeks ago:



If quarantine is useless, why would this possibly be happening, surely the quarantine would have no effect and all other cities in China would be getting just as infected as Wuhan was?

Also your claim of "most medical experts have been saying with clear certainty that the virus will not be contained" even if true is irrelevant, because if it can't be contained has any medical expert said that quarantine procedures are useless? No, of course not, it's a basic part of the health response to this type of situation and if you are going to bring up health official and experts you have to actually listen to what they say, not misquote and twist it to try and fit your agenda.

Also for "solid medical proof to show us that the true reason the number of infections in China is dropping is because of their quarantine" the conclusions are obvious from the data but you can also look back at the decades of research into quarantine and how it is effective against infectious diseases, which is why quarantine is a standard scientific evidence based response in basically every country on earth to an epidemic scenario.

I also not that despite asking for "strong evidence" from me to prove my points, you feel no need to back up anything you said with any evidence but are perfectly happy to draw wild conclusions.

piloteer

@Ampersand

https://www.statnews.com/2020/01/26/containing-new-coronavirus-may-not-be-feasible-experts-say/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/experts-warn-of-possible-sustained-global-spread-of-new-coronavirus/

https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2020/01/27/wuhan-virus

https://www.vox.com/2020/2/23/21149327/coronavirus-pandemic-meaning-italy

Leave us take note of the date on some of these articles that quote many medical experts who specialize in infectious disease control. Some of these articles are more than a month old now. Once it was realized that people who were infected didn't show any signs of being infected for up to two weeks, many said it was improbable to be able to contain the virus. That is a key factor in this discussion because it demonstrates how unlikely it is to be able to contain the virus and that our efforts should be focused on treatments. Also because it is now known that some people who are infected are totally asymptomatic. This means that it is feasible for the disease to be anywhere and it wouldn't be known for two weeks or more. 

Michael Osterholm is the director for the University of Minnesota's center for infectious disease research and policy. He says, "“I don’t think the answer is shutting down the world to stop this virus. It’s already out,”. Anthony Fauci is the head of the national institute of allergy and infectious diseases. He says, “when several countries have widespread transmission, then spillover to other countries is inevitable,”.

While I was searching for the myriad of articles that have experts on infectious diseases saying this one won't be contained, I came across another nerve racking article that claims this virus may not be stopped by a vaccine. It may become a seasonal disease like the flu. Unfortunately, like the flu it may have several different strains that won't be cured by just one vaccine. There's a chance this disease may become a part of our lives for generations to come. Because of the complicated nature of influenza and the many different types of it, and the fact that it's constantly changing, vaccines are not always effective and are useless on some types. The corona virus could become an infection like the flu, and we may have to deal with it's presence every year.

If this disease does become a seasonal disease like the flu, it's not very viable to think we can just shut down the global economy and all schools and government agencies for half of the year to try and contain a seasonal disease. The best way to combat this disease in that scenario is to focus on treatments. 

None of your argument overcomes the point I made about how even with a very strict quarantine in place, the virus still was not contained. There are now more than 60 other countries with this virus, and many of those outbreaks have been seen in people who have not traveled to other countries with this virus. This means it can generally be assumed that the virus is already spreading undetected in those countries, and it is already in countries that have no reported cases as of yet. This coupled with the fact that not every country will absolutely abide by the strict rules needed to put a proper quarantine in place, and it's also foolhardy to think every country has the means to do so anyway. If the virus is still showing signs of outbreaks in countries that cannot enforce a proper quarantine because of a lack of resources, then every other country on earth can still be at risk of having an outbreak as well. In fact, as long as the virus is a threat anywhere on earth and there is no vaccine that can stop it, every other country could still be very much at risk of an outbreak.

It is not a realistic option to shut the entire planet down for a disease that can't be detected until it has potentially already infected huge amounts of the population without them even knowing. Pretty soon, you and I will most likely come face to face with this disease and a quarantine will only slow the inevitable. We may already have it and won't know it for two more weeks.                     

Ampersand

@piloteer

You realise that literally nothing in any of your links supports your points and you have wildly spun off into a series of conclusions based on pure fancy?

Not only do none of the links say containment is impossible (just getting harder or less likely), but you seem to be focusing on the idea that if the corona virus does spread to have a worldwide influence and can't be contained in relatively few areas then that means there is no point to a quarantine, even though mitigation of an epidemic and lowering the peak impact of the virus is one of the key reasons behind a quarantine.

You'll note that nowhere in a single one of your links does it mention that if the coronavirus does turn into a true epidemic that we should stop quarantine procedures which have been devised to lessen the disease's impact. That's a pure fantasy of your own making that has no actual basis. There may be arguments about the level of quarantine warranted and the restrictions/advice that should be in place, but absolutely no-one is saying to just go hog wild and lift all safety procedures.

piloteer

@Ampersand

Just because nobody has been quoted as saying "we shouldn't have a quarantine" does not mean the medical community considers a quarantine to be a viable option. When we see quotes from experts on infectious diseases saying "it's already out", and “Despite the enormous and admirable efforts in China and around the world, we need to plan for the possibility containment of this epidemic isn’t possible,”. Those statements do not sound like a high vote of confidence for the effectiveness of a quarantine to me, but hey, maybe they do to you. Pointing out that nobody has said "We shouldn't quarantine" is rather disingenuous because it's also true that nobody has said "We need to step up our efforts when it comes to quarantines ". And they most certainly haven't said "This can still be contained".  In fact, when they say things like it's not a matter of if- but a matter of when it will happen, and we need to move on to the next phase, it seems very clear to me that the medical community doesn't consider containment to be a viable option. The most viable option now is treatments and the hope for an effective vaccine.       

There is absolutely no merit to your claim that a quarantine can somehow "lessen" the impact of a disease that cannot be contained. Exactly how is it a quarantine can do anything other than slow the pace of the inevitable? The only purpose for a quarantine is to contain the virus. If containment is impossible, there are no other benefits a quarantine can provide other than maybe slowing it, but it won't stop it in any manner. And a quarantine will do absolutely nothing to somehow weaken or "lessen" the affects of the virus. If it can't be contained, that means we WILL all get it. This means it is inevitable. One could argue that if they hide away in their basement for 4 months then they won't get it. But they'll be broke of course. And probably in debt. And won't it suck for them to find out that they can still get it as soon as they come into contact with society because it has become a seasonal disease. A quarantine has become useless against the corona virus.      

***Scientific America

Tools like quarantine and isolation — which were key to controlling SARS — are unlikely stop spread of a virus that can transmit during the period from infection to symptoms, experts say.

Dr. Nancy Messonnier, director of National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said the agency knows transmission of the virus within the United States may be on the horizon.

“We’re leaning far forward. And we have been every step of the way with an aggressive stance to everything we can do in the U.S.,” she told STAT. “And yet those of us who have been around long enough know that everything we do might not be enough to stop this from spreading in the U.S.”

***Advisory Board

Experts said it might be impossible to contain the new virus if it in fact can be transmitted from infected individuals who aren't displaying symptoms.

These statements were said before it was confirmed that asymptomatic infectees could spread the virus.

Allison McGeer, an infectious disease specialist who has helped countries address outbreaks of SARS and MERS, said, "The more we learn about it, the greater the possibility is that transmission will not be able to be controlled with public health measures."

Neil Ferguson, an infectious disease expert at Imperial College London who is studying the new coronavirus outbreak, said there already could be tens of thousands of cases of the virus in China that haven't yet been reported or confirmed, "Despite the enormous and admirable efforts in China and around the world, we need to plan for the possibility containment of this epidemic isn't possible," he said.

***Vox

“The data over the last week, and the spread in other countries, has raised our level of concern and our level of expectation we’re going to have community spread here,” said Nancy Messonnier, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at CDC. “It’s not a question of if this will happen, but when this will happen, and how many people in this country will have severe illnesses.”

If stopping the virus is increasingly out of reach, health officials will have to accept that it’s everywhere and move into a new phase in their response strategy. (To be clear, a disease outbreak can become a pandemic without being especially severe or fatal.)

“We are at a turning point in the Covid-19 epidemic,” said Lawrence Gostin, a global health law professor at Georgetown University. “We must prepare for the foreseeable possibility, even probability, that Covid-19 may soon become a pandemic affecting countries on virtually all continents.”

***Market Watch 

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-why-the-coronavirus-may-spread-in-the-united-states-despite-government-efforts-to-contain-the-outbreak-2020-02-27

The public may have a false sense of security because of government efforts to contain the illness, which infectious disease experts say were unlikely to ever succeed

Ampersand

@piloteer

Actually, the fact that no-one supports your view is a very good indicator that you are in the wrong. if you look at your quotes, you'll see none of them back your position and you're merely making leaps of logic from one inference to the next e.g. "Tools like quarantine and isolation — which were key to controlling SARS — are unlikely stop spread of a virus that can transmit during the period from infection to symptoms, experts say." still leaves the possibility that quarantine can stop the virus and does nothing to tackle the issue that even if the coronavirus isn't stopped that quarantine can still be beneficial.

If you check the World Health Organisation pandemic guidance for instance includes advice on placing restrictions on mass gatherings and educational facilities. Solid evidence based advice is in favour of quarantining.

There are also some faulty parts in your thinking. You state "a quarantine will do absolutely nothing to somehow weaken or "lessen" the affects of the virus. If it can't be contained, that means we WILL all get it." This is nonsense. It could potentially be widespread, for instance in my country there are figures for up to 80% of the population getting it (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-51698000) but the virus isn't magic. It needs to physically spread one from person to another and it won't infect anyone. More than that it's common sense that if we reduce the opportunity for it to spread (cancel festivals and concerts for instance) than the infection rate will drop, or as Professor Hugh Pennington, emeritus professor of bacteriology at Aberdeen University, said about the 80% figure:

"The worst case scenario is definitely the worst case scenario: it means that everything that could go wrong does go wrong, with absolutely no containment measures in place."

"The mathematical models have shown that the spread of the virus will be very severely restricted if we 'lock up' people who have been in contact with it - self-isolation so to speak - or we take all the patients who've definitely got symptoms and we put them in hospital, because that's another form of isolation, in effect."

another point you haven't understood is clear in you asking "There is absolutely no merit to your claim that a quarantine can somehow "lessen" the impact of a disease that cannot be contained. Exactly how is it a quarantine can do anything other than slow the pace of the inevitable?". If all a quarantine did was slow the pace of the inevitable, that would still make it worthwhile. one of the biggest challenges with a pandemic like this is the strain that the sudden and disproportionate increase in sickness causes. There aren't the resources available to cover for 80% of the population to be sick at once and 5% of them to be sick enough to require hospitilisation. The hospital beds, the doctors, the nurses the facilities, they just won't exist to provide the care that is required. Even by merely spreading the sickness over the course of a few months rather than allowing it to indiscriminately run rampant, you will see a massive advantage in terms of quality of care and a reduced mortality rate from those who do get seriously ill. That's not evening bringing into the matter the need to maintain social order and not wanting a significant fraction of your police force, fire service, etc all to fall ill simultaneously.

ZeusAres42

World Health Organization (WHO) ✔ @WHO

Replying to @WHO

"Now that the #coronavirus has a foothold in so many countries, the threat of a pandemic has become very real.

But it would be the first pandemic in history that could be controlled.

The bottom line is: we are not at the mercy of this virus"-@DrTedros #COVID19

Ampersand

ZeusAres42 said:

World Health Organization (WHO) ✔ @WHO

Replying to @WHO

"Now that the #coronavirus has a foothold in so many countries, the threat of a pandemic has become very real.

But it would be the first pandemic in history that could be controlled.

The bottom line is: we are not at the mercy of this virus"-@DrTedros #COVID19

Thanks for conceding I guess, unless you're posting that without understanding what it means.

ZeusAres42

Ampersand said:

ZeusAres42 said:

World Health Organization (WHO) ✔ @WHO

Replying to @WHO

"Now that the #coronavirus has a foothold in so many countries, the threat of a pandemic has become very real.

But it would be the first pandemic in history that could be controlled.

The bottom line is: we are not at the mercy of this virus"-@DrTedros #COVID19

"Thanks for conceding I guess, unless you're posting that without understanding what it means."

Nah, I don't understand that just like I don't understand that a cheeseburger needs cheese, just like I don't understand basic order of operations, just like I don't understand 2+2 = 4, and so forth. Satire!

As for conceding, I don't see how just posting an update has anything to do with conceding or not conceding anything anyway. Also, I never said anything contrary to what I said before on this anyway too.

Ampersand

ZeusAres42 said:

Nah, I don't understand that just like I don't understand that a cheeseburger needs cheese, just like I don't understand basic order of operations, just like I don't understand 2+2 = 4, and so forth. Satire!

As for conceding, I don't see how just posting an update has anything to do with conceding or not conceding anything anyway. Also, I never said anything contrary to what I said before on this anyway too.

Got you confused with piloteer, my bad.

piloteer

Ampersand said:

ZeusAres42 said:

Nah, I don't understand that just like I don't understand that a cheeseburger needs cheese, just like I don't understand basic order of operations, just like I don't understand 2+2 = 4, and so forth. Satire!

As for conceding, I don't see how just posting an update has anything to do with conceding or not conceding anything anyway. Also, I never said anything contrary to what I said before on this anyway too.

Got you confused with piloteer, my bad.

@ZeusAres42

Ampersand wouldn't purposely jump down your throat if he/she knew it was you. But of course he/she would not hesitate to jump down my throat given the opportunity.  

piloteer

@Ampersand

Just so we're on the same page, at no point was I making an argument about "self-isolation", or "self-quarantine" periods, which are new catchphrases being tossed around in the media. My argument solely pertains to a quarantine which is implemented to restrict the movement of an entire community, or portion of society who are considered to possibly have been exposed to a virus, or be at risk of having been exposed (as was done in China). None of my argument pertains to isolation for people who have been confirmed to have been infected, and have decided to "self quarantine" (which means soft isolation, I think?) to help inhibit further spread of an infection.

It has just crossed my mind that we may have been talking right past each other because of this possible misconception. I take the blame if this is the case, because I should have been more clear in my description. I am in no way arguing that somebody should not "self quarantine" if they feel they'll be putting other members of society at risk If they continue to mingle with other members of society. The term "self quarantine" may have thrown me off, because it's not a legal term used in the medical community. It seems to be a catchphrase used to describe a non-enforced isolation rather than any kind of a true quarantine. I am not arguing against a "self-quarantine", or "self-isolation".          

My argument is solely about whether a government should be allowed to force entire portions of the population from going to work or moving about freely (as seen in China). This also is not an argument against shutting down schools, canceling events where a lot of people gather, or closing businesses or tourist attractions. Those are decisions made by the proprietors of those specific establishments and their choice to close should be respected. This argument only pertains to the coronavirus specifically, and I am not arguing that all viruses should be treated without any implementations of a quarantine. If there was any misconceptions about the true nature of this discussion, I apologize. If you would like to continue this discussion knowing the specific parameters I've just laid down, you are certainly welcome to and it is my hope you do because I find this to be an interesting discussion. Thank you.                         

onethinhandle56

 

Ampersand

piloteer said:

@Ampersand
My argument is solely about whether a government should be allowed to force entire portions of the population from going to work or moving about freely (as seen in China). This also is not an argument against shutting down schools, canceling events where a lot of people gather, or closing businesses or tourist attractions. Those are decisions made by the proprietors of those specific establishments and their choice to close should be respected. This argument only pertains to the coronavirus specifically, and I am not arguing that all viruses should be treated without any implementations of a quarantine. If there was any misconceptions about the true nature of this discussion, I apologize. If you would like to continue this discussion knowing the specific parameters I've just laid down, you are certainly welcome to and it is my hope you do because I find this to be an interesting discussion. Thank you.                         

@piloteer They you're not arguing against a quarantine. Shutting down schools and cancelling events are examples of a quarantine, especially when put forward by governments such as France's ban on mass gatherings. This is as per the definition "a restraint upon the activities or communication of persons or the transport of goods designed to prevent the spread of disease or pests".

I'm not even sure what specifically you're trying to argue at this point. You support quarantine to a certain extent (banning public gatherings, closing schools), but don't support quarantine when it reaches some nebulous point that's more restrictive than those examples but less restrictive then those imposed in China? How can anyone argue for or against this idea when your position and the dividing line aren't clear?

piloteer

@Ampersand

The type of quarantine I'm against (in the case of this coronavirus) would be a government enforced ban on social gatherings and schools and even in some cases restricting residence from leaving their homes. Thus far, that has not happened in most parts of the US or UK. A self imposed quarantine is not enforced by law in the US or the UK right now. In Wuhan China, there is no self imposed quarantine. It is a government mandated quarantine that is enforced by law enforcement, their army, and even volunteer citizens. I don't believe the concept of a "self quarantine" really comes close to the government mandated quarantine in Wuhan China. As far as schools closing, that is also not a government enforced quarantine because (in the US) it is up to school officials alone to decide whether to follow the recommendations of the CDC. It's also quite complicated on what authority the CDC does have when it comes to a quarantine. Individual states can challenge the need for a quarantine, and they can even disobey one if they feel it is not needed or will be of no value, or because they just plain cannot enforce one. In the face of civil liberty, who am I to assert that we should ignore a decision by a private owner of a baseball team to not have any games, or to only televise their games? I can't in good faith argue against an individual's decision to quarantine themselves. I didn't realize that a self imposed quarantine can technically still be considered a quarantine. My bad. But it is my belief that the type of quarantine seen in China is very different than the type we've seen in the US and the UK. If you do not think there is any point of continuing this discussion because I wasn't specific enough, I understand, and again, my apologies. If you do believe as I do that a government enforced quarantine is different from a self imposed quarantine, then we can continue. Geee, I guess that kinda puts us in the awkward position of me asking you about what types of quarantine do you feel is a valid government response to the coronavirus?                     

Ampersand

@piloteer

There is a lot of confusion here even now due to you flipflopping. Just a couple of posts ago you said "This also is not an argument against shutting down schools, canceling events where a lot of people gather" while now you say "The type of quarantine I'm against (in the case of this coronavirus) would be a government enforced ban on social gatherings and schools". Those are mutually exclusive and opposite positions.

You also seem to be getting into semantics. Whether the appropriate legal pathway involving the order for a public school to be closed is by the PotUS, the CDC, the governor, the city mayor, the state senate or the headteacher of the individual school, they are still a government employee and their restriction qualifies as the type of government enforced ban you oppose. The issue is whether it's effective and should be followed. As already shown, the answer is yes.

The WHO provisions already quoted list a government enforced ban on social gatherings and schools as a potential appropriate response (it will be circumstance specific). e.g. If you check the World Health Organisation pandemic guidance for instance includes advice on placing restrictions on mass gatherings and educational facilities. All the arguments I've made previously in favour of quarantine all still apply to it.

Dee

***** I question if this virus is actually all that bad to begin with

So do I , I think the whole thing is grossly over exaggerated a doctor stated last week most people get over the virus quickly and do not need hospital treatment , it effects the very sick and elderly it seems and isn’t that always the way?

The threat to healthy individuals is no more a danger than the flu is 

AlofRI

Conservatives should ignore any government implemented quarantine. They don't believe in government anyway. Well, maybe a tiny, easily controlled one. Liberals should follow government precautions that come from organizations like the CDC and WHO. This would result in the reduction of the right wingers and we could return to some normalcy, and a bit more confidence in the government that has ACTUALLY …. MADE U.S. GREAT over these few hundred years. 

piloteer

@AlofRI

Oooooo, that's what I like about you. Your opening a whole can of worms and turning this all political on us. I hope this turns into a mean and condescending shouting match. I'm so sick of all this "courtesy" stuff. Lets light this pig up!!!!   

piloteer

@Ampersand

In my defense, I was only arguing against a "government enforced quarantine" as was stated in my premise. I do take blame for the fact that we posted several arguments that turned out to be arguments that really had nothing to do with each other. It dawned on me as soon as you posted statistics on "self quarantine" and made arguments defending the practice of such. I plead ignorance as far as how virus control is conducted in the UK. I can say that because of the myriad of laws in the US, it can be very complicated as to who actually gets the final say to close businesses and public establishments. Even the President cannot force a superintendent of a school district to close their schools if that superintendent actually believes there's no risk to the public who attends those schools. The CDC has strict guidelines for virus control, but they don't actually enforce anything, it's the government's decision to enforce any recommendations made by the CDC. Plus, each state can resist a mandated quarantine if they don't feel the public needs it, or if they don't believe it can be enforced as has happened in New Mexico.

 There are no government mandates to enforce "self quarantine" here in the US. There are several statistics that demonstrates how most people in the US are inclined to self quarantine if they feel ill, even if they know that they're doing it out of an overabundance of caution. I have no qualms with that form of "quarantine", and I actually do understand the need to at least slow the virus so as to not have an overload of sick patients at a hospital and overloading our medical care providers. 

Let me make my argument more clear. The type of quarantine I was discussing was the type seen in China where people are not allowed to leave the areas around Wuhan. That type of a quarantine is used to contain the virus. My argument is that isolating the virus now is a useless endeavour. It is my belief that we should focus our efforts on public health efforts, like washing our hand frequently, wearing masks (if we can find any), being cautious about keeping our distance (at least 6ft was recommended), and staying away from elderly people or those of us who may have weakened immune systems, or other underlying health issues. 

I absolutely do not believe individuals should not self quarantine if they feel ill. I do not believe we should not respect the decisions of a superintendent of a school to close the schools in their districts if they feel they have good reason to do so. Even though they are government employees, they are still accountable for their decisions as individuals, not as a government. There are no laws in my area that is forcing any school districts to close. If a district remains open, it is because it was the choice of that district to do so, and our state government right now is respectful of the decisions of the superintendents whatever their decisions me be. If a district remains open and it causes a problem, it will be the superintendent and their faculty who will be accountable. The governor of my state, or the President of the US, or the head of the CDC will not be held accountable for the individual decisions of a school district. That does not fit the criteria of a government enforced quarantine. If the governor of my state declares a mandated closing of all schools in this state, towns and school districts can slap a cease and desist claim on that mandate if they feel they shouldn't have to abide by it. They can challenge the mandate in court, and they can ignore the mandate altogether if they so choose. Of course if they ignore the mandate and it causes a problem, it is they alone who will have to atone for their decision, not the governor, or the CDC, or the President.                           

I hope this helps to clarify my stance. I apologise if it does not and you and I have reached an impasse because of that. 

onethinhandle56

No comment

Ampersand

@piloteer

Despite you quoting me as referencing  "self quarantine", I've literally not said that even once in this debate.

In your post previous to this one you specifically said "The type of quarantine I'm against (in the case of this coronavirus) would be a government enforced ban on social gatherings and schools". I have made arguements in favour of government enforced bans on social gatherings and schools. The debate was relevant and pertinent except now you're saying you don't hold the position you literally said you held in just your prior post and now you say "The type of quarantine I was discussing was the type seen in China where people are not allowed to leave the areas around Wuhan".

You have changed your position from your most recent post to the one before because the one before was objectively incorrect. That's the issue here, your moving goalposts.

We_are_accountable

@piloteer

I agree with you, and I thought I would paste what I had mentioned in  my own debate on this subject...

I have read where 50% of people who get this virus will have NO symptoms, and then be immune for the rest of their lives.

The entire reason they are shutting down our economy is to slow the natural process of getting this virus. Their logic is to slow the pace of infection in order to prevent a one time burden on our hospitals. So rather than having too many sick people in our Hospitals, they have decided to collapse our economy, create huge job losses, even though the virus has very little affect on the vast majority of people. It is only a danger to sickly elderly people.

This is no different then the Flue which is also harder on the elderly. Yes, we have yet to get a vaccine, and this is why we must do all we can do to protect the elderly. Shutting down schools, restaurants, sporting events and everything else is going too far in my humble opinion.

I would have sooner seen our nation educate everyone on how to best protect the elderly from getting the infection, rather than shutting down our entire way of life.

If we were going to ban anything, it should have been banning older sicker people from going to sporting events, because they are the only one's at risk. We could have told older people to stay at home and we would bring them their food and other necessities. Shutting down our economy is ludicrous because sooner or later, we will probably all get this virus. I understand the logic, but it is going too far.

I believe this is only happening through peer pressure and the fears of businesses being blamed for not following the crowd. This is another form of political correctness.

I'll bet more people die from the Flue or losing their jobs then from this virus. How come we never did this with all the other past outbreaks? How did we survive?

Plaffelvohfen

The real problem is the pressure this virus could have on different healthcare systems... Here's the current situation worldwide. 

We haven't reached the peak yet, still a good couple of weeks to go... And countries that won't enforce strict quarantines now will see more pressure on their systems like in Italy... The US has only 2.8 hospital beds per 1,000 people. That’s fewer than in Italy (3.2), China (4.3) and South Korea (12.3), all of which have had struggles. More important, there are only so many intensive care beds and ventilators.

It’s estimated that there is about 45,000 intensive care unit beds in the United States. In a moderate outbreak, about 200,000 Americans would need one. It is estimated that between 160 and 214 millions of americans will be infected over the course of the epidemic... Some people obviously think it's a joke and call for people to gather in protest to the "hoax"... The real danger is that everybody gets sick at the same time... 

Many people are comparing this virus to the flu. The thing to remember, though, is that the influenza numbers are spread out over eight months or more. They don’t increase exponentially over the course of weeks, as the cases of Covid-19 are doing right now.Further, a greater proportion of people who are becoming ill now are seriously sick. According to some estimates, 10 percent to 20 percent of those who are infected may require hospitalization. In a metropolitan setting, if enough people become infected, the numbers who may need significant care will easily overwhelm our capacity to provide it. When you understand that between 160 & 214 millions people will most likely be infected, if you're good at math, and understand that there is a limited number of doctors and they too will get infected eventually, this should be of concern...

Chances of survival are good sure, after all, the virus appears to only be severe if it reaches the lungs and remains untreated...............