IS IT BETTER TO QUARANTINE ill or the unill?

IS IT BETTER TO QUARANTINE ILL POTENTIAL REGIONS OR MAKE REGIONS WHERE THE UN ILL CAN RETREAT TO IN SAFETY LIKE QUARANTINE ZONES... So healthy would be able to go to these locations verify they are not ill and remain safe. May be easier then quarantining the assessed ill large regions...

But where would be the best places to locate the unill?
abandoned large facilities like:
feel free to add locations

a reply to: Ophiuchus 13
abandoned
BASES
DUMBS? if permitted
FACTORIES
FARMS
HOSPITALS
JAILS
STADIUMS

I would think it a bad idea to round up the healthy and force them into even closer proximity. One person gets sick in a stadium everyone gets sick. Quarantine the ill and perhaps keep people from traveling to and from infected areas until they have been observed for 21 days.

a reply to: Domo1

No round up at all request and knowledge of locations released individuals come willingly if their in say a bad city-neighborhood.

NO FORCE an option Domo1

Great input to clarify the thread question thanks

No.

If one among the hundreds of millions is infected then everyone would get infected. Also if every healthy person was quarantined no one would be able to work or bring food/water etc...

a reply to: bastion

Accepted input, but if mass quarantine no work or social movements as well.

Thank you for adding, just thought maybe its easier to gather all the unsick and guard them from infection which then wont be able to penetrate the SAFE zones to infect any...

So barricades are set a few miles outside the safe zones and health check points required before entry. After entry 21 days on the outside of main or core of safe zones. After 21 days permitted into primary zones still to be checked again and provided sleep/home quarters based on individual or family sizes. So all not congregated in one area.

Again thank you for taking time to add input on how to respond to this SAPIENS SAPIENS issue of current

originally posted by: Domo1
I would think it a bad idea to round up the healthy and force them into even closer proximity. One person gets sick in a stadium everyone gets sick. Quarantine the ill and perhaps keep people from traveling to and from infected areas until they have been observed for 21 days.

I agree with Domo--one doesn't quarantine the healthy as that would essentially open the door for transmission of not just Ebola but other infectious diseases as well. It's just a bad idea. Additionally, if one person who had been unknowingly exposed to the Ebola virus was in there and started portraying symptoms, well, then the allegory about one bad apple spoiling the bunch truly applies.

a reply to: WhiteAlice

Understood WhiteAlice, as posted above no force more so recommendations to guarded safe locations with health check points and exterior 21 day waiting periods zones before entering the main safe zones. This prevents the infection from reaching the masses overall. If infected directed to help zones. Is it easier to quarantine large places like entire cities or just gather the healthy and relocate them to safer places?

Thank you for taking time to add

Further after large safe areas have been assessed start moving the core people up to those land mass regions freeing the core area safe zones for next healthy groups to go through...

Just a guess/opinion but, both?

I would do both when it got to a certain level. And what that level is might be now. They clearly don't have a clue.

The ill! By the way, some of us are a tad worried they might start rounding up the un ill.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

LOGICAL adds more space between infected and those to be potentially infected as opposed to doing just one. This can help keep some from spreading it to animal/pets ect or any creatures that may come in contact with the bio fluids from some who may be outside safe zones. Now can mosquitoes - ticks or other any insects spread this as they would be potential concerns & risk for safe zones?
Thanks ~Lucidity for adding a different POV to the subject of discussion

a reply to: Ophiuchus 13

Welcome. I'm just confused, and pretty worried, as we all are...or should be.

Whatever they are doing (or not doing as the case may actually be), they are not doing it fast enough.

People are sort of freaking out about them giving instruction to funeral homes and hospitals and putting disaster teams on alert, but that's actually a good thing in most cases. I just don't have the warm fuzzy that we are equipped physically, logistically, or emotionally to handle this.

a reply to: Unity_99

Fear acknowledged and understood THIS IS WHY WE MUST BE FEARLESS as fear can cause more issues of unrest. And it may be safer if the option is provided and not forced to go to safe zones till this gets under control...
1 thanks you Unity_99 for coming in to add some input on how to possibly respond to this issue

Interesting question you pose.

I think it depends. If we are talking about the 1 patient (so far) in Dallas then I think you quarantine just those 100 or so people he had direct contact with. If we are talking about what is happening in Africa where containment has failed miserably due to a number of factors including the poor conditions most live in with little infrastructure or government control of vast areas then you seal off an entire region. When I say seal off an entire area I mean no one goes in and no one goes out unless they are medical/military personnel with proper equipment in place.

It also depends on the severity of the "bug" causing the outbreak. How deadly is it? How is it transmitted? Where did it start? If it is a place like India for example a airborne killer would move very quickly and be difficult to control by moving people around whether they are sick or healthy. In a case like that you would almost have to seal off a region/country totally. No boats, planes, buses, cars leave and all border crossings are closed. The military would have to be willing to eliminate those who are non-compliant I would think. Scary stuff and would be very interesting to see how humanity handled something that had the potential to move quickly and kill a few billion in a short time. Would we pull together and solve it or turn on each other and fall apart? My own thought is that we would turn on each other and fail.

Good topic!

I can see if something really bad occurred people building fortresses and those not infected staying put for a time.

I am not yet gearing up towards fear. Concerned and watching. But I keep picturing the people pulling back the curtain on the little orc behind it, and really starting to stand up together, elect their own leaders, not allow anything to take away their freedoms, and see the leaders and elite in this little bubble, like in Honey I shrank the kids, growing smaller and smaller until no one can even hear them, not even their workers, and people shining like the sun and being good to each other.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: Ophiuchus 13

Welcome. I'm just confused, and pretty worried, as we all are...or should be.

Which is a natural early response to danger. We just got to remain focused...

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
People are sort of freaking out about them giving instruction to funeral homes and hospitals and putting disaster teams on alert, but that's actually a good thing in most cases.

It sounds like they are setting things up now as it may be harder to do so later if it gets out of control.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
I just don't have the warm fuzzy that we are equipped physically, logistically, or emotionally to handle this.

Hmm this species as well as its elder or ancient relations have made it through similar situations in the past. Granted at times many lives were lost but the species made it through. So try to keep some optimism within the consciousness and remember. Not an easy thing to do but some got to bear the weight of many at times who may not be able to mentally handle it to prevent full mental destabilization in mass and so those some must be STRONGER...

example ISRAEL wall from WWZ movie. It would of been a good idea if there was a laser or electric fence surrounding it as well as a impenetrable secure roof dome lid...

originally posted by: Ophiuchus 13
a reply to: WhiteAlice

Understood WhiteAlice, as posted above no force more so recommendations to guarded safe locations with health check points and exterior 21 day waiting periods zones before entering the main safe zones. This prevents the infection from reaching the masses overall. If infected directed to help zones. Is it easier to quarantine large places like entire cities or just gather the healthy and relocate them to safer places?

Thank you for taking time to add

Again, mass containment would simply assure the passage of other contagions if not Ebola as well due to incubation periods for viruses in particular. The incubation period for Ebola can be as short as 2 days or as long as 21 days. There would be no way to be totally assured that one wouldn't be letting someone exposed to Ebola to mix in with the so-called healthy crowd.

In a situation where epidemic exists, it would be far more viable and reasonable to quarantine in place the entire city. For something like Ebola, there is much that could be done to avoid transmission, particularly here in the US. It would be infinitely more logistically possible to quarantine an entire city if need be than to do sorting. Now if you're talking sorting in an exposed and quarantined city, then that could deter it. However, again, with the long potential incubation period of Ebola, you're still risking the lives of all of those healthy people who may not have otherwise been exposed to the risk of exposure.

a reply to: BugOut

you presented some good data on size of infection and how to respond BugOut that make lots of sense. The country quarantine wow that would be one major job to endure for the troops containing and the populace cooperating and YES 1 agrees WE WOULD ALL have to work together and not separately to make it work properly. Thank you very much for you in depth response BugOut...