I am pretty certain all this was covered already, but I think that some of us on here are very confused.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do societies sometimes "quarentine" the healthy.
- Thread starter Quagmire
- Start date
McBell
Unbound
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
Unbound
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
*banned*
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
*banned*
No, I just asked you a question. Are you calling me a troll? If so explain why?
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.
Good-Ole-Rebel
*banned*
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
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.
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
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.
Good-Ole-Rebel
*banned*
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
*banned*
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
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.
Good-Ole-Rebel
*banned*
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
]
Again: present where?
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.
Yup.
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.
Nope, that's why no one is calling it that except you.
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?
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?
Don't worry it's only seems to have shown up in your own head so far so I think we're safe.
Also, let's take another look at this:
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.
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.
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.