Quarantines to help reduce the spread of virus

#27
#27
bamawriter said:
Yes. But that doesn't mean that forced quarantine was a better solution. An AIDS patient can go about his daily life without posing any risk to his fellow man. An ebola patient cannot.
Click to expand...

And this is why the only people that suggest HIV patients be quarantined are political figures and not epidemiological professionals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tvolsfan
#28
#28
FYI, Georgia has set aside a park for people to be quarantined in, may still be a suggestion, but it's on the news. People are freaking, yelling concentration camp. Probably doesn't help that the name of the park is "hard labor" state park.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fun coupon VOL
#30
#30
OHvol40 said:
First, what about the rest of the common sense points about quarantine?

Second, It’s common knowledge today that in the US the highest risk populations are IV drug users and the male gay populations, but in the 80s, people basically thought only gay men could catch it, so you’re basically suggesting with 1980s knowledge just wholesale locking up gay men. Hmmm, who would want to use AIDS as an excuse to get rid of that population?
Click to expand...
It was definitely known that IV drug users were at higher risk back then.

What demographic would have been affected by that move had we quarantined those that included drug users and gay males?
 
#33
#33
Rasputin_Vol said:
It was definitely known that IV drug users were at higher risk back then.

What demographic would have been affected by that move had we quarantined those that included drug users and gay males?
Click to expand...

Is that a rhetorical question?

Also, what about my other 3 bullet points on why it’s a bad idea?
 
#34
#34
OHvol40 said:
Is that a rhetorical question?

Also, what about my other 3 bullet points on why it’s a bad idea?
Click to expand...

OHvol40 said:
1. AIDS is not casually transmitted [Not sure why that matters. It still was/is being spread]
2. Many people with AIDS don’t know they’re infected [Many people carrying the corona virus don't know they're infected]
3. This would hinder real AIDS treatment and research, forcing patients underground [That is the risk for any quarantine, not just with HIV]
4. Quarantine is a last resort for an extremely virulent disease, not to be used to alleviate paranoia or to alienate certain populations.
Click to expand...

OK
 
  • Like
Reactions: vols40
#36
#36
Rasputin_Vol said:
OK
Click to expand...

Casual transmission is literally why it matters... and the coronavirus comparison has to be disingenuous... if not I’m worried that you would compare the two. I’ll spare you the reasons why they’re nothing alike because I’m pretty sure you know.
 
#37
#37
Rasputin_Vol said:
No, it is not.

Why not include IV drug users with gay males and/or anyone else with the disease at that time? What demographic would have been impacted by including IV drug users?
Click to expand...

The entire infected population + families and loved ones? I’m waiting for you to get to your suggestion.
 
#38
#38
OHvol40 said:
Casual transmission is literally why it matters... and the coronavirus comparison has to be disingenuous... if not I’m worried that you would compare the two. I’ll spare you the reasons why they’re nothing alike because I’m pretty sure you know.
Click to expand...
I'm still wondering what difference it makes in terms of how each of the viruses are spread... the fact is that you are still leaving infected people out here in the public that are able to spread the virus to a larger population.
 
#39
#39
OHvol40 said:
The entire infected population + families and loved ones? I’m waiting for you to get to your suggestion.
Click to expand...

My suggestion of quarantine would not work today for HIV... that horse has left the barn already.

Again, I'm talking about hypothetically in the early 1980s when we were only talking about less than 10000 folks.
 
#40
#40
Rasputin_Vol said:
I'm still wondering what difference it makes in terms of how each of the viruses are spread... the fact is that you are still leaving infected people out here in the public that are able to spread the virus to a larger population.
Click to expand...

Because of the means of spread. You can explain how to completely prevent the spread and contraction of HIV, you can’t do the same for airborne or contact spread viruses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Purple Tiger
#41
#41
Rasputin_Vol said:
My suggestion of quarantine would not work today for HIV... that horse has left the barn already.

Again, I'm talking about hypothetically in the early 1980s when we were only talking about less than 10000 folks.
Click to expand...

I think today’s status of the disease is proof that the former and current protocol is best practice.
 
#43
#43
bamawriter said:
Come on, Ras.
Click to expand...
You all are focusing on how the virus is spread. I'm focusing on the fact that the virus can be spread... period. Whether it is by a handshake, cough, IV drug use or sex, the fact is that you are okay with quarantining one group that has the potential to spread the disease to a larger population, yet have problems with quarantining another group that could spread the disease to the larger population. The end result and consequences are the same.
 
Last edited:
#44
#44
OHvol40 said:
I think today’s status of the disease is proof that the former and current protocol is best practice.
Click to expand...

They didn't have the luxury to see into the future in the early 1980s. They were panicking and fearmongering just like they are doing with this coronavirus. Go back and read some of the literature and prognostications at the time. They were making wild predictions about infection rates by 1990. No, there was a tremendous amount of fear and concern back then. But, bamawriter and yourself hinted at why we really reacted the way we did back then, versus us casually throwing around the term "quarantine" right now. The entire means of transmission argument is disingenuous because the end result is the same. A virus running rampant that could have easily been "contained". If anything, the means of transmission would have made quarantine a hell of a lot easier with HIV versus a flu virus.
 
#45
#45
Rasputin_Vol said:
You all are focusing on how the virus is spread. I'm focusing on the fact that the virus can be spread... period.
Click to expand...

The method of transmission is critical in determining whether a quarantine is justified. It's not justified when the disease in question isn't easily communicable. Coronavirus is; HIV is not.

Whether it is by a handshake, cough, IV drug use of sex, the fact is that you are okay with quarantining one group that has the potential to spread the disease to a larger population yet have problems with quarantining another group that could spread the disease to the larger population
Click to expand...

An AIDS patient does not have the potential to spread the disease to anyone other than those with whom his blood or semen comes in contact, and at more than just a surface level. He is a risk to a very specific population, and it is actually quite easy to mitigate that risk without a quarantine.

But there should be no political consideration. Replace AIDS with Hep-C and my conclusion is the same.
 
#46
#46
Rasputin_Vol said:
They didn't have the luxury to see into the future in the early 1980s. They were panicking and fearmongering just like they are doing with this coronavirus. Go back and read some of the literature and prognostications at the time. They were making wild predictions about infection rates by 1990. No, there was a tremendous amount of fear and concern back then. But, bamawriter and yourself hinted at why we really reacted the way we did back then, versus us casually throwing around the term "quarantine" right now. The entire means of transmission argument is disingenuous because the end result is the same. A virus running rampant that could have easily been "contained". If anything, the means of transmission would have made quarantine a hell of a lot easier with HIV versus a flu virus.
Click to expand...

It’s not disingenuous because means of transmission directly affects the decision to quarantine.

I invite you to read the literature of what epidemiological experts have to say about this issue.
 
#47
#47
bamawriter said:
An AIDS patient does not have the potential to spread the disease to anyone other than those with whom his blood or semen comes in contact, and at more than just a surface level. He is a risk to a very specific population, and it is actually quite easy to mitigate that risk without a quarantine.
Click to expand...
That infected person can spread it to Person A, and then Person A, who is able to conceal his IV drug use or other high risk behavior and then infect his wife/girlfriend.
 
#48
#48
Rasputin_Vol said:
That infected person can spread it to Person A, and then Person A, who is able to conceal his IV drug use or other high risk behavior and then infect his wife/girlfriend.
Click to expand...

Yes. But by simply refraining from sex or intravenous drugs, the AIDS patient is of practically no risk to spread it to Person A, let alone anyone further. A coronavirus patient is at risk of spreading the disease to numerous others without so much as touching another human being.
 
#50
#50
Franklin Pierce said:
PANICK
Click to expand...

From what I’ve heard speculated the number of cases in the US is doubling every 6 days and according to one tracking site the blended death rate is 6% based on the number of total worldwide outcomes of currently known cases.

This is a projection for the ongoing spread in the US just based on the math cited above. It looks like if we can survive until July 4th there is at least some chance that this is not the end of the world, well maybe it could be for California, Washington, and New York, but theoretically we could still have a lot of survivors elsewhere in the country. jmo.

I think we should wait until early May to panic because the way we're currently tracking, at that point, comparisons of Covid19 to the normal seasonal flu may no longer be in vogue. I'm sort of following this to see if we see a shift in spread either above or below trend. jmo.

ScreenHunter 329.png
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top