Do societies sometimes "quarentine" the healthy.

[Quagmire]

I posted those multiple definitions. Political prisoners do not fit the description.

They are not for isolating people or for preventing the spread of disease. They are more like a "penalty box" for those who have broken the law than a form of quarantine.

You havent done this. Rather, you have had the definitions of quarantine presented amd they do not match your description.

Doesnt matter if you call it quarantine, isolating, or whatever, the principles are the same.

Thats what I'm focusing on: the principles. I'll leave it to you to obsess over semantics.

 

[Polymath257]

No, it's not. Civilization has not quarantined the healthy. They quarantine the sick or those that 'might be' sick.

In other words, some healthy people will be quarantined to see if they are sick.

That is not what we have done. We have quarantined the entire population. On the basis that they don't know.

In other words, everyone *might be* sick. The incubation time for this disease is long enough that a significant period of physical distancing is necessary to reduce the spread. You don't know whether you are sick. And, even if you have no symptoms, you can still be spreading this. THAT is a good reason to quarantine.

When will we reach the place where 'they know'. Stupid isn't it? We will never reach that place. As I said before, on that basis, enjoy your quarantine because there is no end to it.

Well, one *big* thing is getting testing up to speed. Another is to have a vaccine. The first has been slow to happen, mostly because of how the federal government has been dragging its feet. Getting good testing really is the key to opening up again. Vaccines are another issue. I've heard optimistic reports we will have one at the turn of the year. More likely by summer of next year.

 

[McBell]

You're examples are not of 'quarantine'. You want to identify them as a type of quarantine, but they are not. As I said, civilization quarantines the sick. Not the healthy. Till now.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Actually, civilation quarantines the suspected sick until it is believed they are no danger to the healthy.
So yes, some healthy people are quarantined...
Then you also have healthy people quarantine to stay healthy people.
Like those who closed the cities down back in 1918 during the Spanish Flu.

But no need to let facts get in your way,

 

[Nakosis]

Not sure what that means but you seemed to have read everything in my OP backwards.

I don't mean funny in a bad way. It's just, yes this last line exactly. A matter of perspective, like looking at the examples in reverse.

 

[questfortruth]

This is a spin off From another thread. The question was raised "Does civilization sometimes quarantine the healthy".

Coronavirus precaution overkill ( maybe)

My position is that yes it does. Consider:

Activist are often imprisoned for ideologies that many people would consider healthier than those belonging to the people who imprisoned them. The purpise is often to "quarantine" these indivuduals to keep these ideoligies from spreading and " infecting" the general populace.

By the most basic standards of Natural selection, those in possession of the highest levels of advantageous qualities such as brute strength and a propensity towards violence are often imprisoned, "quarantined" to protect the week or more passive members of society.

Parents often enroll their children in private schools In order to quarantine them from what they would consider undesirable influences. In economic terms these children could be considered healthier than the norm.

Thise are just a few examples.

When state authority puts in jail an innocent human, it is war casualty. Yes, in a war an innocent might suffer. When killer murders an innocent, it is not war casualty, because it does killer-sinner.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

View attachment 39803​

Private schools and prisons aren't doing that. They're is no alone. As the definition indicates, social isolates neglect self care. That doesn't describe inmates, who often have cellmates.
Another point, what is absent is a crucial point of the definition of quarantine - isolation that is not just isolation but isolation that is related to preventing the spread of contagious disease.

 

[McBell]

Private schools and prisons aren't doing that. They're is no alone. As the definition indicates, social isolates neglect self care. That doesn't describe inmates, who often have cellmates.
Another point, what is absent is a crucial point of the definition of quarantine - isolation that is not just isolation but isolation that is related to preventing the spread of contagious disease.

Except some parents do in fact send their children to private schools to isolate them from public schools, certain ideas, etc.

Hells bells, I know several parents who home school in order to isolate their kids from the public.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This is a spin off From another thread. The question was raised "Does civilization sometimes quarantine the healthy".

Coronavirus precaution overkill ( maybe)

My position is that yes it does. Consider:

Activist are often imprisoned for ideologies that many people would consider healthier than those belonging to the people who imprisoned them. The purpise is often to "quarantine" these indivuduals to keep these ideoligies from spreading and " infecting" the general populace.

By the most basic standards of Natural selection, those in possession of the highest levels of advantageous qualities such as brute strength and a propensity towards violence are often imprisoned, "quarantined" to protect the week or more passive members of society.

Parents often enroll their children in private schools In order to quarantine them from what they would consider undesirable influences. In economic terms these children could be considered healthier than the norm.

Thise are just a few examples.

In some ways we quarantine people as they get older too.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If memes or ideas are considered as beneficial, neutral or deleterious, then means to manage contamination by or segregation from those ideas could be considered quarantine. The same relationship can be applied to behaviors also.

Ideas and behaviors can be transmitted between individuals and through populations in much the same way that a parasitic or pathogenic organism can.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This is a spin off From another thread. The question was raised "Does civilization sometimes quarantine the healthy".

Coronavirus precaution overkill ( maybe)

My position is that yes it does. Consider:

Activist are often imprisoned for ideologies that many people would consider healthier than those belonging to the people who imprisoned them. The purpise is often to "quarantine" these indivuduals to keep these ideoligies from spreading and " infecting" the general populace.

By the most basic standards of Natural selection, those in possession of the highest levels of advantageous qualities such as brute strength and a propensity towards violence are often imprisoned, "quarantined" to protect the week or more passive members of society.

Parents often enroll their children in private schools In order to quarantine them from what they would consider undesirable influences. In economic terms these children could be considered healthier than the norm.

Thise are just a few examples.

Your thread has sent my mind thinking in several directions and making a few distant connections, at least for myself. I really like this thread and find your idea very interesting. I have been reading @Sunstone's poll threads and wonder if it would be of any value to capture threads that raise interesting questions or make novel expansions of existing ideas.

You have a novel expansion of the idea of quarantine and it raises interesting and important questions along with some valuable and useful criticism of that expansion.

As I am getting older and have been reading about the loneliness many older people experience, the association with how we as a society are sort of quarantining our elderly came to mind. This is more pointed in light of the current pandemic and the vulnerability of older people coupled with social distancing and other factors. While not necessarily an active quarantine, it is one that is clearly coming into recognition.

So there it is. Interesting questions. Novel expansion of an existing idea. Thought provoking critical review and rebuttal that are intellectually productive. My own meandering thinking on the subject.

I wonder what else we have quarantined without recognition or realization? Is quarantine good or bad or does it depend on circumstances, expectations and outcomes? Can it be passive or is it only quarantine when it is an active, directed and wilfully pursued?

Edit: I may need to quarantine my Kindle for editing as I type and making undesirable changes for me.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Simply false. Civilization has always quarantined those who *might* be sick, in part to see if they get sick. That is sort of the original point of quarantine: to isolate people to determine if they carry a disease or not.

Apparently healthy livestock can be and have been quarantined to determine if they have a disease and, in doing so inside that population is isolated from others if it turns out they do. They may not and be as healthy as they appear. It is a common practice in animal husbandry and with live animals entering a country.

This notion that only the sick are quarantined is short sighted.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Going to a private school does not equate isolation from public school nor does it equate enforced.

Could you expand on this? As a student educated in the public system, I did not have any interaction with students in private schools, but that could be due to the scarcity of them in my region. Not certain what you mean by enforced.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Nice attempt to redefine 'quarantine'.

As I said before, civilization doesn't quarantine the healthy. It quarantines the sick. Till now.

Your 'examples' are not examples of 'quarantine'.

Good-Ole-Rebel

How is it determined who is healthy when means of testing do not exist, are limited or impractical? You could quarantine an apparently healthy group to see if they really are healthy.

If 1000 people are isolated from the other 7 billion of us, they are quarantined with respect to us. Are we quarantined in respect to them?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

This is a spin off From another thread. The question was raised "Does civilization sometimes quarantine the healthy".

Coronavirus precaution overkill ( maybe)

My position is that yes it does. Consider:

Activist are often imprisoned for ideologies that many people would consider healthier than those belonging to the people who imprisoned them. The purpise is often to "quarantine" these indivuduals to keep these ideoligies from spreading and " infecting" the general populace.

By the most basic standards of Natural selection, those in possession of the highest levels of advantageous qualities such as brute strength and a propensity towards violence are often imprisoned, "quarantined" to protect the week or more passive members of society.

Parents often enroll their children in private schools In order to quarantine them from what they would consider undesirable influences. In economic terms these children could be considered healthier than the norm.

Thise are just a few examples.

Meh, I'm going to ignore all the back and forth in this thread, and also ignore the title. This being the case, feel free to ignore my post (I certainly won't be offended).

But there are a couple of things that came to mind. Unsure on the relevancy to your point, so I'll throw them out here, and you may determine that.

1. Yes, societies over time have commonly separated healthy people from other members of society for various reasons, where society norms and cultural considerations are crossed. Specific examples includes imprisonment or exile of political opponents, homosexuals, Jews, Japanese-Americans etc, etc, ad nauseum. Of course, one might argue that society had identified those individuals as 'sick' in the broadest sense of the word, but I don't think we'd find anyone here who would argue that in every instance of this occurring over time the prisoners or exiled parties were indeed sick. Rather, they transgressed some rule established and enforced by the rulers and leaders of said societies.

2. In the interests of making my post more interesting, I'll go with a more salavious example. In WW1, the US Army noted that soldiers undergoing basic training in the States suffered from high rates of VD. They responded by rounding up prostitutes and 'camp followers' (ie. think groupies) in the areas around camps, and interring them for testing. Once they had tested negative they were...commonly not released. Since in a practical sense, the G.I.'s were obviously spreading the disease as rapidly as the women, and even a clean woman could become a source of infection after sleeping with a G.I, they quarantined even the clean women.

Eventually the women were released, after the G.I.s shipped...with their Army-supplied condoms. To go and save French women from the Hun. And spread venereal disease.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Could you expand on this? As a student educated in the public system, I did not have any interaction with students in private schools, but that could be due to the scarcity of them in my region. Not certain what you mean by enforced.

As a student in a fairly rugged public school, we had plenty of interaction with private school kids. Mostly screaming things out the windows at them, and throwing fruit when their sports activities unfortunately led them past our fenceline.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

In other words, some healthy people will be quarantined to see if they are sick.


In other words, everyone *might be* sick. The incubation time for this disease is long enough that a significant period of physical distancing is necessary to reduce the spread. You don't know whether you are sick. And, even if you have no symptoms, you can still be spreading this. THAT is a good reason to quarantine.



Well, one *big* thing is getting testing up to speed. Another is to have a vaccine. The first has been slow to happen, mostly because of how the federal government has been dragging its feet. Getting good testing really is the key to opening up again. Vaccines are another issue. I've heard optimistic reports we will have one at the turn of the year. More likely by summer of next year.

As I said, you don't quarantine the healthy, you quarantine the sick. We haven't quarantined some. We have quarantined all. Except those the government deems important. And they must live in a 'sanitized' world.

That's interesting. I don't know if I'm sick so I need to be quarantined. Silliness.

Testing is only good for a moment in time. After you get tested and it comes back negative, then two hours later you may have the virus. So what are you going to do? Test em and then quarantine them so they won't catch it? Then test everyone daily? What a set up?

All the while, you are destroying peoples immunity system. Being so quarantined and sanitized doesn't help your immunity system. So when it is lifted, how healthy is everyone going to be? As soon as they get back out into this dirty old world, they will be more susceptible to any virus or disease.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Actually, civilation quarantines the suspected sick until it is believed they are no danger to the healthy.
So yes, some healthy people are quarantined...
Then you also have healthy people quarantine to stay healthy people.
Like those who closed the cities down back in 1918 during the Spanish Flu.

But no need to let facts get in your way,

Quarantining healthy people doesn't keep them healthy.

What facts are those?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

How is it determined who is healthy when means of testing do not exist, are limited or impractical? You could quarantine an apparently healthy group to see if they really are healthy.

If 1000 people are isolated from the other 7 billion of us, they are quarantined with respect to us. Are we quarantined in respect to them?

If your not sick, you're healthy. Pretty simple.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[exchemist]

You're examples are not of 'quarantine'. You want to identify them as a type of quarantine, but they are not. As I said, civilization quarantines the sick. Not the healthy. Till now.

Good-Ole-Rebel

This is wrong, as both I and @Polymath257 have already pointed out on this thread.

You are confusing quarantine with isolation of someone known to be sick. Quarantine is a procedure of temporary isolation for a predetermined period, to determine whether they carry an infectious disease or not.

So it is applied to apparently healthy people, as a precaution in case some of them are incubating the disease.

This is a standard practice that has been used for centuries. The name comes from Venetian practice at the time of the Black Death, in 1347.

 

[exchemist]

If your not sick, you're healthy. Pretty simple.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Wrong again.

There is something called an incubation period in most infectious diseases. During the incubation period the infected person remains apparently healthy. Even testing may not reveal it. So it is not simple, at all, to determine that a person is either "healthy" or "sick".

It is the existence of the incubation period that makes the process of quarantine necessary.