Do societies sometimes "quarentine" the healthy.

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes.


If necessary.


Well, we would have limited the time you were infectious and able to spread to others. Weekly testing would definitely limit the risks involved considerably. But you are correct,a single test will not be enough if you can still interact with people who are carriers.

I am pretty certain all this was covered already, but I think that some of us on here are very confused.

 

[McBell]

It's not a matter of soothing my feelings. It's a matter of you letting your mouth write a check your butt can't cover. Perhaps you should consider that next time you want to offer your 'advice'.

Good-Ole-Rebel

See, I knew you would come up with some nonsense to sooth your hurt feelings.

What, you gonna suggest we meet at high noon to settle this like men, right?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

See, I knew you would come up with some nonsense to sooth your hurt feelings.

What, you gonna suggest we meet at high noon to settle this like men, right?

Are you someone else he has me confused with?

I reckon you better be careful pardner. Don't want no rebels a gunnin fer ya.

 

[McBell]

Are you someone else he has me confused with?

I reckon you better be careful pardner. Don't want no rebels a gunnin fer ya.

Let them try.
I already got the Acheivement:

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Let them try.
I already got the Acheivement:

View attachment 39956​

Not sure what all that is, but sounds like you are set up.

I find the whole notion that any of us would be afraid of another of us to be silly in the extreme. It is only mentioned to make the person mentioning it feel better about themselves and impugning their opponent. It has zero value to a discussion. Other than being an amusing distraction for me and taking the thread off the rails (briefly).

The entire idea of looking at how we isolate ourselves and others and applying the perspective of quarantine is fascinating to me. I have self-quarantined at times, though not for medical reasons. More like, I hope, a Phoenix rising from the ashes of the past. The point of medical quarantine is to reduce, even eliminate, the spread of a disease. To ensure the quarantined are as healthy as they appear. But what we call quarantined has correlaries with other concepts of isolation.

If part of the mission here is to make us think beyond our boundaries, I think this thread has been successful.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Yes.


If necessary.


Well, we would have limited the time you were infectious and able to spread to others. Weekly testing would definitely limit the risks involved considerably. But you are correct,a single test will not be enough if you can still interact with people who are carriers.

So you test the whole population and everyone, even the healthy are quarantined? You then test them again a week later? Then what? Continual testing? You're never going to know. I do not believe such a massive undertaking, coupled with the destruction of the economy, merits such action.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

See, I knew you would come up with some nonsense to sooth your hurt feelings.

What, you gonna suggest we meet at high noon to settle this like men, right?

No, I just asked you a question. Are you calling me a troll? If so explain why?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Polymath257]

So you test the whole population and everyone, even the healthy are quarantined? You then test them again a week later? Then what? Continual testing? You're never going to know. I do not believe such a massive undertaking, coupled with the destruction of the economy, merits such action.

Pretty much everyone will have to be tested. People who test positive will be quarantined. Others will be allowed to work, along with appropriate distancing. When there are outbreaks (and there will be), further testing and contact tracing with quarantine of people who have been in contact with an infected person. When new cases get low enough, the distancing measures can be relaxed (again, with contact tracing of new cases and quarantine).

Hopefully a vaccine will appear soon. Then pretty much everyone will have to be vaccinated.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Pretty much everyone will have to be tested. People who test positive will be quarantined. Others will be allowed to work, along with appropriate distancing. When there are outbreaks (and there will be), further testing and contact tracing with quarantine of people who have been in contact with an infected person. When new cases get low enough, the distancing measures can be relaxed (again, with contact tracing of new cases and quarantine).

Hopefully a vaccine will appear soon. Then pretty much everyone will have to be vaccinated.

It's a ridiculous measure. If those who test positive are the only ones quarantined, those who go back to work can catch it two hours later. Not to mention even those who are quarantined can still catch it.

You say 'when there are further outbreaks' then you respond to finding those in contact. That is fine. That is what they should be doing now instead of quarantining everyone healthy or sick.

You say 'new cases', which means someone who has actually gotten sick from it. I have heard you can test positive and not be sick from the disease. Therefore there are still millions out there who will be carriers, all the time and unknown. Of course you could test the whole population every two hours. Is it worth it? Of course not.

Ah yes, Then there is the 'vaccine'. Is everyone going to be 'forced' to take the vaccine? Or will it be voluntary? After they have gone to this length of destroying the economy and people's lives I'm sure there is going to be an effort to force it. Which I am against also. I don't ever take the flu shot either.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Polymath257]

It's a ridiculous measure. If those who test positive are the only ones quarantined, those who go back to work can catch it two hours later. Not to mention even those who are quarantined can still catch it.

You say 'when there are further outbreaks' then you respond to finding those in contact. That is fine. That is what they should be doing now instead of quarantining everyone healthy or sick.

You say 'new cases', which means someone who has actually gotten sick from it. I have heard you can test positive and not be sick from the disease. Therefore there are still millions out there who will be carriers, all the time and unknown. Of course you could test the whole population every two hours. Is it worth it? Of course not.

Testing the whole population is going to have to happen. THAT will reduce the number who have to be tested further to local outbreaks.

Ah yes, Then there is the 'vaccine'. Is everyone going to be 'forced' to take the vaccine? Or will it be voluntary? After they have gone to this length of destroying the economy and people's lives I'm sure there is going to be an effort to force it. Which I am against also. I don't ever take the flu shot either.

Yes, everyone should get the vaccine (except for those with a condition that disallows it). And that should be a requirement (whether legal or just social) for returning to most jobs. And I would bet most jobs *would* require it just to prevent lawsuits from anyone who dies because of their negligence.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Pretty much everyone will have to be tested. People who test positive will be quarantined. Others will be allowed to work, along with appropriate distancing. When there are outbreaks (and there will be), further testing and contact tracing with quarantine of people who have been in contact with an infected person. When new cases get low enough, the distancing measures can be relaxed (again, with contact tracing of new cases and quarantine).

Hopefully a vaccine will appear soon. Then pretty much everyone will have to be vaccinated.

I am already hearing the nutters say they won't take the vaccine.

 

[Polymath257]

I am already hearing the nutters say they won't take the vaccine.

In all likelihood, those who aren't tested won't be able to work in most workplaces.

 

[Quagmire]

]

It's a ridiculous measure. If those who test positive are the only ones quarantined, those who go back to work can catch it two hours later.

From who?

Not to mention even those who are quarantined can still catch it.

People who test positive already have it.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Testing the whole population is going to have to happen. THAT will reduce the number who have to be tested further to local outbreaks.



Yes, everyone should get the vaccine (except for those with a condition that disallows it). And that should be a requirement (whether legal or just social) for returning to most jobs. And I would bet most jobs *would* require it just to prevent lawsuits from anyone who dies because of their negligence.

No, not just testing the whole population. Testing the whole population over and over again. As I said, ridiculous.

So, you're saying the vaccine should be forced upon everyone? What about the lawsuits from those who catch the virus from the vaccine? What about the law suits based upon those who feel their Constitutional rights have been violated?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

]


From who?



People who test positive already have it.

Just because you quarantine people doesn't mean the virus is quarantined. Polymath said 'when there are outbreaks'. You can test and quarantine all you want, the virus is out there.

But, we are quarantining everyone at this time. And people still catch it.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Quagmire]

Just because you quarantine people doesn't mean the virus is quarantined.

Of course it does: if everyone infected with the virus were quarantined then who would be out there spreading it?

I know the chances of isolating every single infected person is pretty remote but people don't generally abandon Solutions just because they aren't 100% foolproof :slamming on your brakes doesn't necessarily guarantee a hundred percent that your vehicle is going to stop does that mean you should stop using your brakes?

The fact of the matter is that quaranting as many infected people as we possibly could is going to slow down the rate of infection correspondingly.

Polymath said 'when there are outbreaks'. You can test and quarantine all you want, the virus is out there.

Out where? It doesn't just hang in space, it needs a host.

But, we are quarantining everyone at this time. And people still catch it.

Good-Ole-Rebel

The lockdowns in place atm don't amount to a quarantine. Not even close.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Of course it does: if everyone infected with the virus were quarantined then who would be out there spreading it?

I know the chances of isolating every single infected person is pretty remote but people don't generally abandon Solutions just because they aren't 100% foolproof :slamming on your brakes doesn't necessarily guarantee a hundred percent that your vehicle is going to stop does that mean you should stop using your brakes?

The fact of the matter is that quaranting as many infected people as we possibly could is going to slow down the rate of infection correspondingly.



Out where? It doesn't just hang in space, it needs a host.



The lockdowns in place atm don't amount to a quarantine. Not even close.

You could test and then quarantine the whole world. The virus would still be present. How about those animals. What do you want to do with them. Are we going to test all the animals in the world also to make sure our bubble is secure? And again, how many times a day do we test all animals? Ridiculous.

Not remote. Impossible and crazy.

So, the quarantine everyone is under at present is not a quarantine? Even though it is enough to destroy the worlds economies and ruin and cost peoples lives. You want to initiate a stricter quarantine. What a solution.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Quagmire]

You could test and then quarantine the whole world. The virus would still be present.

]

Again: present where?

How about those animals. What do you want to do with them. Are we going to test all the animals in the world also to make sure our bubble is secure? And again, how many times a day do we test all animals?

To date there are no known cases of anyone catching covid-19 from an animal so no, quaranting them probably wouldn't be necessary. Which is probably why no one has brought that up yet except you.

Ridiculous.

Yup.

Not remote. Impossible and crazy.

That your expert opinion? So instead of speaking in hints and riddles how about coming right out with what you mean here Are you saying that since we can't come up with 100% foolproof solution to the problem we shouldn't do anything at all? Because it sure sounds like that's what you're saying.

So the quarantine everyone is under at present is not a quarantine?

Nope, that's why no one is calling it that except you.

Even though it is enough to destroy the worlds economies and ruin and cost peoples lives.

It's not a matter of degrees it's a matter of definition: it's not a quarantine. We're seeing lockdowns, we're seeing restrictions, we're not seeing anybody being completely and utterly isolated frm the general population, are we?

You want to initiate a stricter quarantine.

Show me where I said that or anything that could be reasonably interpreted to mean that.

How about you stop trying to cloud the issue with theatrics?

What a solution.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Don't worry it's only seems to have shown up in your own head so far so I think we're safe.

 

[Quagmire]

Also, let's take another look at this:

Third time I've brought this up: you claim to care so much about people being able to go back to their jobs, yet you've admitted --- even bragged about--- the fact that you and your friends flat out refuse to wear masks, practice social distancing, or do anything that might help get the pandemic under control so people could get back to work.

How do you resolve the contradiction?

It's not a contradiction with me. Government is going to find the numbers it needs to do what it wants when it wants.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Which numbers specifically.

Corona virus deaths or Corona related deaths.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Not seeing what kind of sense this is supposed to make. You're saying you don't trust the numbers that the government Health organizations are giving us, and this somehow excuses you from having to take any precautions.

Unless you think the whole thing was completely manufactured by the government, then your line of reasoning here makes absolutely no sense at all.

And yet you keep harping on the fact that people aren't being allowed to go back to work while at the same time doing everything you can to drag this thing out as long as possible. That's the contradiction I was talking about, and I'm sorry but your explanation does absolutely nothing to resolve any of it.

I'll say it again: if you're as concerned about people getting back to work as you claim to be why aren't you doing whatever you can to make that happen as quickly as possible? That is: why aren't you practicing social distancing? Why aren't you wearing a mask?

If you still don't see the contradiction it's because you flat-out refuse to look at it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Of course it does: if everyone infected with the virus were quarantined then who would be out there spreading it?

I know the chances of isolating every single infected person is pretty remote but people don't generally abandon Solutions just because they aren't 100% foolproof :slamming on your brakes doesn't necessarily guarantee a hundred percent that your vehicle is going to stop does that mean you should stop using your brakes?

The fact of the matter is that quaranting as many infected people as we possibly could is going to slow down the rate of infection correspondingly.



Out where? It doesn't just hang in space, it needs a host.



The lockdowns in place atm don't amount to a quarantine. Not even close.

As near as I can tell, there is a demand for the unrealistic using ridiculous "what ifs". As if magic is the expectation.

I get that it is inconvenient. No one wants the economy to collapse, people to be out of work or rights to be violated, but the alternative could be much worse if a few selfish people are allowed to run over the rest of the country.