Do societies sometimes "quarentine" the healthy.

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Wrong again.

There is something called an incubation period in most infectious diseases. During the incubation period the infected person remains apparently healthy. Even testing may not reveal it. So it is not simple, at all, to determine that a person is either "healthy" or "sick".

It is the existence of the incubation period that makes the process of quarantine necessary.

No, you're wrong. If I'm not sick, I'm healthy. Simple as that.

Based on what you're saying, it doesn't matter if one is tested or not. Because you don't know. So, just stay quarantined the rest of your life if you like.

Then after you're tested what do you do tomorrow? Get tested again, because you don't know?

Silly.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

This is wrong, as both I am @Polymath257 have already pointed out on this thread.

You are confusing quarantine with isolation of someone known to be sick. Quarantine is a procedure of temporary isolation for a predetermined period, to determine whether they carry an infectious disease or not.

So it is applied to apparently healthy people, as a precaution in case some of them are incubating the disease.

This is a standard practice that has been used for centuries. The name comes from Venetian practice at the time of the Black Death, in 1347.

I understand what you're saying. There is a place for quarantine. But, you don't place everyone under quarantine. Those who are sick and those who they were in contact with.

You don't isolate or quarantine someone who is healthy just because you don't know, because you can never know. You isolate, quarantine, the sick.

And, you don't quarantine the millions of healthy people just because you don't know. Based on that reasoning, the quarantine will never cease.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[exchemist]

No, you're wrong. If I'm not sick, I'm healthy. Simple as that.

Based on what you're saying, it doesn't matter if one is tested or not. Because you don't know. So, just stay quarantined the rest of your life if you like.

Then after you're tested what do you do tomorrow? Get tested again, because you don't know?

Silly.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Nope, if you're "not sick" you might be incubating the virus and capable of spreading it even though you feel fine. Do you call that "healthy"?

This is one of the issues with Covid-19.

 

[exchemist]

I understand what you're saying. There is a place for quarantine. But, you don't place everyone under quarantine. Those who are sick and those who they were in contact with.

You don't isolate or quarantine someone who is healthy just because you don't know, because you can never know. You isolate, quarantine, the sick.

And, you don't quarantine the millions of healthy people just because you don't know. Based on that reasoning, the quarantine will never cease.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Not quite, no. You quarantine those who appear healthy but who you have reason to believe may be incubating the virus. You do that only for long enough for the disease to appear if a person is incubating it. So it is strictly temporary, to give time for the virus to emerge if it is there.

But I completely agree that quarantine is only feasible if you can identify specific groups like that, to be isolated for a limited time. The social distancing measures we have seen in many countries are to serve a different purpose and are not correctly described as quarantine. The purpose of those is to cut down the rate of transmission, enough that each infected person will on average infect fewer than one new person while they are infectious. Obviously if you can achieve that, the epidemic is no longer self-sustaining and will die away.

There is another way to achieve that, besides the blunderbuss approach of limiting everybody's social interaction and shutting down large sections of the economy. That is to test everyone with symptoms and rapidly follow up and quarantine (used in the correct sense) everyone they have come into contact sufficiently to be at significant risk of having caught it. This is what Korea did, and Taiwan, and Germany. Basically, they listened to the WHO's advice - and they are now the winners.

To do that, though, you need the number of infected people to be at a level that the test and tracing system can handle. This is what the UK government is now trying to get it down to, although it is obviously harder once you let the thing get out of control initially, as they did.

 

[Shad]

Could you expand on this? As a student educated in the public system, I did not have any interaction with students in private schools, but that could be due to the scarcity of them in my region. Not certain what you mean by enforced.

Enforced regarding quarantines are government actions

 

[Shad]

Quarantine is MOST COMMONLY used for medical reasons.
However, that is not the only use for the word.

No it is the word we use as it has a specific definition. Isolate is too generalized.

 

[Shad]

That's already been refuted.

Nope. You merely cut out the noun use which is about medical reason banking on no one looking.

Definition of QUARANTINE

Notice the noun use is medical? You just ignore that fact.

and more

Definition of quarantine | Dictionary.com

 

[Shad]

As long as it's sometimes, the point stands.

Nope as quarantine is about medical reasons. Also note in your OP you used the word healthy, ergo medical related yet used shifted to topics outside the medical sphere. You conceded the point in the OP title before you started.

That's true. For one thing, they're usually a lot shorter.

I was talking about rights.

 

[Stevicus]

This is a spin off From another thread. The question was raised "Does civilization sometimes quarantine the healthy".

Coronavirus precaution overkill ( maybe)

My position is that yes it does. Consider:

Activist are often imprisoned for ideologies that many people would consider healthier than those belonging to the people who imprisoned them. The purpise is often to "quarantine" these indivuduals to keep these ideoligies from spreading and " infecting" the general populace.

By the most basic standards of Natural selection, those in possession of the highest levels of advantageous qualities such as brute strength and a propensity towards violence are often imprisoned, "quarantined" to protect the week or more passive members of society.

Parents often enroll their children in private schools In order to quarantine them from what they would consider undesirable influences. In economic terms these children could be considered healthier than the norm.

Thise are just a few examples.

I guess it depends on terminology and semantics. This isn't really a "quarantine," since people can still leave their homes and go wherever they will. Part of the problem is inadequate testing. Without knowing who has the disease and who doesn't, it's hard to have a clear idea as to what the risk is.

I'm not sure I agree with the example that people who are imprisoned due to crimes of violence is an example of "healthy" people being quarantined. Even if they're physically healthy, they may be unhealthy psychologically, emotionally, or socially. So, they have to be quarantined for that reason. We may even go further to try to isolate the "virus" which is the purported cause of anti-social, violent behavior, such as those who want to ban or restrict violent movies.

On a side note, I recall that during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the government made it clear that they were not "blockading" Cuba (since that would be an act of war), they were imposing a "quarantine." What a difference a single word can make.

 

[Polymath257]

No, you're wrong. If I'm not sick, I'm healthy. Simple as that.

Based on what you're saying, it doesn't matter if one is tested or not. Because you don't know. So, just stay quarantined the rest of your life if you like.

Then after you're tested what do you do tomorrow? Get tested again, because you don't know?

Silly.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Typhoid Mary never believed she was 'sick' because she never showed symptoms. But she still killed at least three people and infected at least 50.

She was isolated (not just quarantined) because she was a threat to others. She died after 30 years of isolation.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Nope, if you're "not sick" you might be incubating the virus and capable of spreading it even though you feel fine. Do you call that "healthy"?

This is one of the issues with Covid-19.

Yep. If I'm not sick, I'm healthy.

Well, as I have said, based on that you will never be healthy as you 'might be' anything. Go ahead and walk around thinking 'gee, I feel just fine but I might be sick'.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Not quite, no. You quarantine those who appear healthy but who you have reason to believe may be incubating the virus. You do that only for long enough for the disease to appear if a person is incubating it. So it is strictly temporary, to give time for the virus to emerge if it is there.

But I completely agree that quarantine is only feasible if you can identify specific groups like that, to be isolated for a limited time. The social distancing measures we have seen in many countries are to serve a different purpose and are not correctly described as quarantine. The purpose of those is to cut down the rate of transmission, enough that each infected person will on average infect fewer than one new person while they are infectious. Obviously if you can achieve that, the epidemic is no longer self-sustaining and will die away.

There is another way to achieve that, besides the blunderbuss approach of limiting everybody's social interaction and shutting down large sections of the economy. That is to test everyone with symptoms and rapidly follow up and quarantine (used in the correct sense) everyone they have come into contact sufficiently to be at significant risk of having caught it. This is what Korea did, and Taiwan, and Germany. Basically, they listening to the WHO's advice - and they are now the winners.

To do that, though, you need the number of infected people to be at a level that the test and tracing system can handle. This is what the UK government is now trying to get it down to, although it is obviously harder once you let the thing get out of control initially, as they did.

That is what I said. Those who are sick and those they were in contact with. You don't quarantine the millions of healthy people in the country because you don't know.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Polymath257]

Yep. If I'm not sick, I'm healthy.

Well, as I have said, based on that you will never be healthy as you 'might be' anything. Go ahead and walk around thinking 'gee, I feel just fine but I might be sick'.

Good-Ole-Rebel

And that is *exactly* the problem with this virus. At this point, it spreads too quickly and silently, not giving symptoms for *weeks*. And you can feel perfectly well and still infect others.

The response in the US has been the minimum, barely responsible reaction. And we will have many die because of our impulsivity.

 

[Polymath257]

That is what I said. Those who are sick and those they were in contact with. You don't quarantine the millions of healthy people in the country because you don't know.

Good-Ole-Rebel

And how do you determine who they were in contact with for the two week incubation period? How do you determine who is sick without testing?

 

[Polymath257]

Yep. If I'm not sick, I'm healthy.

Was Typhoid Mary sick? She *never* showed symptoms.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Typhoid Mary never believed she was 'sick' because she never showed symptoms. But she still killed at least three people and infected at least 50.

She was isolated (not just quarantined) because she was a threat to others. She died after 30 years of isolation.

I don't think typhoid applies in this instance. I don't think Mary ever did have the disease. It appears what little I have just read about her, that it was her personal hygiene that contributed.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

And how do you determine who they were in contact with for the two week incubation period? How do you determine who is sick without testing?

You can only do what you can do. You ask. Testing doesn't prove who was in contact with who.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Shad]

I don't think typhoid applies in this instance. I don't think Mary ever did have disease. It appears what little I have just read about her, that it was her personal hygiene that contributed.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Typhoid can remain in the body without proper use of antibiotics. Our immune system can contain viruses and bacteria without eliminating it. This creates the appearance of health. Mary lived before that treatment. Hygiene, or lack of, is one of the ways people spread typhoid.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't think typhoid applies in this instance. I don't think Mary ever did have the disease. It appears what little I have just read about her, that it was her personal hygiene that contributed.

Good-Ole-Rebel

She didn't have the disease???!!!???

Yes, she did. She was asymptomatic. But she definitely had typhoid in her system.

Yes, personal hygiene contributed (as it does with typhoid). And, in our current situation, NOT washing hands and NOT wearing masks contributes. NOT keeping distance contributes.

Anyone NOT wearing a mask when around other people is, in essence, saying that my life is of no value to them--they are willing to kill me for their convenience.

 

[Polymath257]

You can only do what you can do. You ask. Testing doesn't prove who was in contact with who.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Correct, but are you willing to carry an app on your phone tracing where you have been in case someone you have come into contact with gets this virus?