I think the topic here is either mass quarantine or this nurse in NJ (on which there is already a topic. But anyway...
a reply to: Wildbob77
My comments from the other two thread about these subjects:
Risk assumed on her part. We are getting HER version. Of course she doesn't like it or being the first.
And to the people saying, why is she in quarantine...she is not showing any symptoms. Duh...this is exactly what quarantine is FOR. To make sure they
DON'T show any symptoms for 21 days.
Maybe the WHO/CDC/DWB and big mouth opponents of this who apparently have no CLUE as to what a quarantine is for criticizing this bold move by the
states should find a tropical island and fly all the do-gooder volunteers coming back there for the quarantine period and greet them with leis and
And those opposing this for their various agendas are right on top of her story, using her complaints as an excuse to NOT do this? No. That should
not be allowed to happen. IMPROVE the situation...don't stop the quarantines. Now that she has time on her hands maybe this very motivated,
first-hand experiencer can make this better for those to come.
As to the question, balance includes risk analysis and acceptance or non-acceptance of such risk, with mitigation plans if risk is assumed.
Sacrificing a few rights (if rights are really even what it is at this point) for the short term (say until the crisis is over or under control) may
be something people are willing to do, particularly if it is done transparently and with explanation, and particularly where there is in fact choice
(to travel or not to travel) involved. The people aiding those in other places, if they so choose, should also know that might come with risks or
Short term sacrifice for overall benefit is a concept we seem to have forgotten about. Plus I kind of like my right to be protected from this
potential scurge. I think the governors are making the right choice. Might be too late or not enough but it's a start.
"Mass quarantine is proved not to work" is something I don't know that much about. If mass means throwing everyone in a room together and hoping
for the best, well I guess that wouldn't be a great idea. But if it's done
And it in fact may even give us some more insight into communicability and timings and symptoms and the timing of symptoms, which, as you are well
aware, we have sort of a handle on but is still very much a guessing game given that the baseline of all victims is not complete.
Some assumptions here...as stated before...even if masses were exposed, it would still be in stages and there would be initial options. Even given
1. They would not throw everyone into one room...the infected and simply potentially infected alike, There would be separation by symptoms/stage.
Exposing potentially infected to infected would be idiocy.
2. If people who are potentially infected are not trustworthy to maintain at-home isolation and then removal if/when infected, here might be enough
patrolling capability to help enforce this. But it has to be organized.
3. If it got so bad that people were being thrown immediately into places like FEMA camps due to there being no other options, people probably
wouldn't be caring as much about rights and freedoms, or given resistance to such, would take matters into their own hands, a la Walking Dead style.
It's a lot of what ifs and very situational. And much of it depends on how we set up and how capable we are of handling it, how we communicate it in
an understandable way, and how much people are willing to trust and cooperate.
There would be fear for sure, and probably violence. But if there is a clear, concise plan with rules that are easy to understand and carry out, we
could lessen the impact.