Peer Reviewed Study: ‘There Is No basis for Quarantine’

Full disclosure: I found this article on californiaglobe.com
I am not sure what, if any, the site’s bias is but I still found the article interesting if true.

In a 2006 study on Disease Mitigation Measures in the Control of Pandemic Influenza the conclusion was “there is no basis for recommending quarantine either of groups or individuals.”

The study is authored by Center for Biosecurity of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Baltimore, Maryland COO and Deputy Director Thomas V. Inglesby, MD; Senior Analyst Jennifer B. Nuzzo, SM; CEO and Director Tara O’Toole, MD, MPH; and Distinguished Scholar D. A. Henderson, MD, MPH.

Some highlights of the study:

The authors did recommend things that we are already know to be effective such as isolation of sick people in homes and hospitals, hand washing and respiratory etiquette. However, I found it surprising that they dismissed the mandatory mask wearing: “studies have shown that the ordinary surgical mask does little to prevent inhalation of small droplets bearing influenza virus. “The pores in the mask become blocked by moisture from breathing, and the air stream simply diverts around the mask.”

They also found large scale quarantine measures and travel restrictions ineffective and potentially devastating:

A World Health Organization (WHO) Writing Group, after reviewing the literature and considering contemporary international experience, concluded that “forced isolation and quarantine are ineffective and impractical.”2 Despite this recommendation by experts, mandatory large-scale quarantine continues to be considered as an option by some authorities and government officials.35,43 The interest in quarantine reflects the views and conditions prevalent more than 50 years ago, when much less was known about the epidemiology of infectious diseases and when there was far less international and domestic travel in a less densely populated world. It is difficult to identify circumstances in the past half-century when large-scale quarantine has been effectively used in the control of any disease. The negative consequences of large-scale quarantine are so extreme (forced confinement of sick people with the well; complete restriction of movement of large populations; difficulty in getting critical supplies, medicines, and food to people inside the quarantine zone) that this mitigation measure should be eliminated from serious consideration.

Quarantining healthy people is counter productive:

As experience shows, there is no basis for recommending quarantine either of groups or individuals. The problems in implementing such measures are formidable, and secondary effects of absenteeism and community disruption as well as possible adverse consequences, such as loss of public trust in government and stigmatization of quarantined people and groups, are likely to be considerable. Screening passengers at borders or closing air or rail hubs. Experience has shown that these actions are not effective and could have serious adverse consequences; thus, they are not recommended. An overriding principle. Experience has shown that communities faced with epidemics or other adverse events respond best and with the least anxiety when the normal social functioning of the community is least disrupted. Strong political and public health leadership to provide reassurance and to ensure that needed medical care services are provided are critical elements. If either is seen to be less than optimal, a manageable epidemic could move toward catastrophe.

So….what do you think? Is this another study with a political bias that can be refuted?

Personally, I feel that a majority of the study makes some sense. I’ve been pretty quiet on the whole pandemic but, have got the feeling that the length of the lockdowns are politically motivated. This is particularly evident in my state of Michigan with a governor who has gone off the rails.As I understood it, the lockdown was supposed to "flatten the curve" so the hospitals and personnel would not get overwhelmed with patients. Now that has been achieved, why are we not opening up? Quarantine will not make this virus go away. Eventually, we will see that the impact of the quarantine/lockdown on people’s lives will far outweigh the deaths from Covid-19.

I certainly don’t have the answers, but I don’t see us voluntarily going back to another lockdown if a second wave hits. The people are tired of having their lives and lively hood destroyed for a reported COVID-19 patient death rate of .18% or lower.

nice thread....yep, it's a boergois plot....plain to see now were just waiting for the next step in the AI plan....


what a masterpiece of a plan....gotta give the evil one credit for the effectiveness of this plan....he's got AI

a reply to: jtrenthacker

Somebody better take this down from the internet, too much knowledge.

The official story must be defended at every chance.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: jtrenthacker

Somebody better take this down from the internet, too much knowledge.

The official story must be defended at every chance.

"Deny Ignorance", right? Hopefully I'm not spreading it.

Call me stupid but this is about influenza, but this pandemic is not influenza, right?

a reply to: jtrenthacker

a reply to: jtrenthacker

I am sure a lot of officials and 'experts', know of this study and lots more like it. And they don't dismiss it either.

At the same time, they saw China's reaction, saw Taiwan, S Korea, etc. and most likely became frightened. How would you handle this? A brand new coronavirus, that was showing signs of pneumonia like complications.
Also you have to remember, when this all started, they were saying masks were basically ineffective, just like this study shows. But that was in 2006, it's now 2020, perhaps we need a more updated study, and one that isn't pinned on a completely different virus.

originally posted by: chris_stibrany
Call me stupid but this is about influenza, but this pandemic is not influenza, right?

a reply to: jtrenthacker

That's a good point. I found this on John Hopkins Medicine site:

Lisa Maragakis, M.D., M.P.H., senior director of infection prevention at Johns Hopkins, explains how the flu and COVID-19 are similar and how they are different.

Similarities: COVID-19 and the Flu

Symptoms
Both cause fever, cough, body aches and fatigue; sometimes vomiting and diarrhea. The full list of symptoms of COVID-19 continues to evolve as more is learned about the illness.
Can be mild or severe, even fatal in rare cases.
Can result in pneumonia.

Transmission
Both can be spread from person to person through droplets in the air from an infected person coughing, sneezing or talking.
A possible difference: COVID-19 might be spread through the airborne route (see details below under Differences).
Both can be spread by an infected person for several days before their symptoms appear.

Treatment
Neither virus is treatable with antibiotics, which only work on bacterial infections.
Both are treated by addressing symptoms, such as reducing fever. Severe cases may require hospitalization and support such as mechanical ventilation.

Prevention
Both may be prevented by frequent, thorough hand washing, coughing into the crook of your elbow, staying home when sick and limiting contact with people who are infected. Social and physical distancing can limit the spread of COVID-19 in communities.



Differences: COVID-19 and the Flu

Cause
COVID-19: Caused by one virus, the novel 2019 coronavirus, now called severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, or SARS-CoV-2.

Flu: Caused by any of several different types and strains of influenza viruses.

Transmission
While both the flu and COVID-19 may be transmitted in similar ways (see the Similarities section above), there is also a possible difference: COVID-19 might be spread through the airborne route, meaning that tiny droplets remaining in the air could cause disease in others even after the ill person is no longer near.

Antiviral Medications
COVID-19: Antiviral medications and other therapies are currently being tested to see if they can address symptoms.

Flu: Antiviral medications can address symptoms and sometimes shorten the duration of the illness.

Vaccine
COVID-19: No vaccine is available at this time, though development and testing is in progress.

Flu: A vaccine is available and effective to prevent some of the most dangerous types or to reduce the severity of the flu.

Infections
COVID-19: The first cases appeared in China in late 2019 and the first confirmed case in the United States appeared in January 2020.

Approximately 4,823,479 cases have been confirmed worldwide. There have been 1,508,957 cases in the U.S. as of May 19, 2020.*

Flu: The World Health Organization estimates that 1 billion people worldwide get the flu every year.

In the U.S., for Oct. 1, 2019 – Apr. 4, 2020, the CDC estimates that there were 39 million to 56 million cases of flu. (The CDC does not know the exact number because the flu is not a reportable disease in most parts of the U.S.)

Deaths
COVID-19: There have been approximately 318,857 deaths reported worldwide. In the U.S, 90,369 people have died of COVID-19, as of May 19, 2020.*

Flu: The World Health Organization estimates that 290,000 to 650,000 people die of flu-related causes every year worldwide.

In the U.S., from Oct. 1, 2019 – Apr. 4, 2020, the CDC estimates that 24,000 to 62,000 people died from the flu. (The CDC does not know the exact number because the flu is not a reportable disease in most parts of the U.S.)

The COVID-19 situation is changing rapidly. Since this disease is caused by a new virus, people do not have immunity to it, and a vaccine may be many months away. Doctors and scientists are working to estimate the mortality rate of COVID-19, but at present, it is thought to be substantially higher than that of most strains of the flu.

*This information comes from the Coronavirus COVID-19 Global Cases map developed by the Johns Hopkins Center for Systems Science and Engineering.

originally posted by: chris_stibrany
Call me stupid but this is about influenza, but this pandemic is not influenza, right?

a reply to: jtrenthacker

And almost 15 years old.

Science has spoken, “there is no basis for recommending quarantine either of groups or individuals.” This quote came from a 2006 scientific peer reviewed study done in the United States in reviewing an influenza pandemic. The study also said masks don’t work. Please share if you are tired of Gavin Newsom saying he is just following the science. The science has already spoken, the best thing for Californians is to reopen NOW.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: jtrenthacker

I am sure a lot of officials and 'experts', know of this study and lots more like it. And they don't dismiss it either.

At the same time, they saw China's reaction, saw Taiwan, S Korea, etc. and most likely became frightened. How would you handle this? A brand new coronavirus, that was showing signs of pneumonia like complications.
Also you have to remember, when this all started, they were saying masks were basically ineffective, just like this study shows. But that was in 2006, it's now 2020, perhaps we need a more updated study, and one that isn't pinned on a completely different virus.

I agree with all of your points. I get that we needed to be especially cautious at the beginning of this pandemic but I think the quarantine/lockdown has gone on long enough.

My understanding, it's not so much getting infected; it's the quantity of it. If it's a small amount, the body of a healthy person is going to beat it down in most cases. Actually overwhelmingly majority of cases.

Large exposure to it is a different story. The body gets pushed back into a corner. Ends up turning into a war of attrition that can't be won which will happen for elderly and weak.

Quarantine is not going to do much but piss people off and ruin them financially. Much smarter way to do this and praying a lesson is learned to never do this again. It was a failed experiment. Looked good on paper but ended up being a fvcking awful course of action and nobody wants to own it. Not one single person is saying, oh, by the way I screwed up. Everyone is pointing fingers...meh.

a reply to: jtrenthacker

Yea, I agree.
We should have figured out by now that testing is important and locking down long term care homes, consolidating the sick to specific wings of hospitals, etc, etc, should have been a top priority, and followed with testing the rest and going from there.

Instead we had a blanket nuke approach, which worked for a bit, but for god sake, have a plan in place, not a day by day playbook. I think the whole world will learn from this, and times are going to be interesting from here on out. Also, one thing we should all come out from this is, we can't view political leaders like saviors or gods anymore, we hold them to such a high standard, any little blip now days, especially with the internet, and they become the focal point of criticism.

a reply to: jtrenthacker

Stigmatization and distrust in the government are the cons for letting sick people walk around infecting each other? Sounds like there's not actually much of a downside. Per your personal, um... observation... how exactly do you suppose we quarantine non symptomatic carriers? Go door to door and force people to take tests that don't exist? But... freedoms!!!

originally posted by: jtrenthacker

Some highlights of the study:
The authors did recommend things that we are already know to be effective such as isolation of sick people in homes and hospitals, hand washing and respiratory etiquette. However, I found it surprising that they dismissed the mandatory mask wearing: “studies have shown that the ordinary surgical mask does little to prevent inhalation of small droplets bearing influenza virus. “The pores in the mask become blocked by moisture from breathing, and the air stream simply diverts around the mask.”

The ordinary mask, (as stated) is useless, for exactly the reasons given, once it's full of slobbers, the aspect of a directional protection is up the left...or right if you like, not even designed for that.
N95's are in the same category, you could wear them for a working day, after that pretty much Kaput for pretty much the same reasons.
A Hazmat suit is probably what everybody should have, but could you get one?
the 'first' patient in the US, infected his nurses, in such a litigious country as the USA, the fact they were also infected, is open to who's fault it was, but would you want to guess if it was the equipment the nurses used, or was it the way it was used..or was the equipment just not up to the job anyway. Those are the real questions,
In the case of the Nurses, it's probably true to say their protection was limited, even if they did have a Hazmat outfit of a type.
Of a type, maybe the wiki link might give insight.

en.wikipedia.org...

But by now, you should know that nothing is so simple..it shouldn't be like that.

originally posted by: chris_stibrany
Call me stupid but this is about influenza, but this pandemic is not influenza, right?

In name only. Symptoms, infection pathways, and infectiousness are identical to past influenza outbreaks (pre-flu "vaccine.")

a reply to: jtrenthacker

People panicked.

Politicians took advantage of that panic.

Now we're well and truely ####ed.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: jtrenthacker

People panicked.

Politicians took advantage of that panic.

Now we're well and truely ####ed.

Er, if you are correct, exactly who panicked?

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: jtrenthacker

People panicked.

Politicians took advantage of that panic.

Now we're well and truely ####ed.

Er, if you are correct, exactly who panicked?

Everyone who fed into the media/government spin and hype.

Interesting discussions on the pure math of the virus. Seems the need to stop death by Virus regardless of the costs was the aim of the advisers. Unfortunately sending the young to a war zone is easier than sending the young to care for old people for a few months.

Locking the vulnerable in islands ( care homes ) with care workers for a few months - ( like soldiers to war ) would have saved more lives and more economic factors than the whole sale firestorm sale of public listed companies due to lack of business.

But the young will pay for the future, us oldies will have less time to suffer the taxes coming down the line.
Stay safe and next flu season wash your hands often and stay home if sick -- it maybe covid-21

a reply to: jtrenthacker

Your playing fast and loose with "Peer Review" This reads more like a well sourced position paper more than anything else for a think tank. If this was a legit research article of which you would use the term peer review, they would at the very least have titles. The first author listed IS at least an epidemiologist

Not questioning their assertions till I dig into it but rather the use of "peer review" which implies a research study that has been reviewed by real peers. This seems to assert none of that and is more of a position paper

a reply to: jtrenthacker

You can tell by looking at the CDC chart of contagious disease contraction over the past 3 months, that Social Distancing has no effect on reducing the number of cases with any of them...including Covid-19.