03-21-2020, 04:00 AM
Knieft, I am usually a staunch advocate for personal freedoms. At the same time, I realize there are exceptions. We have prisons for people that injure society. We have the draft in dire times of war. We have restrictions on travel when dealing with natural disasters. This may be one of those times where the danger to society justifies such measures.
If you disagree, where do you personally draw the line? After community spread is tested and growing? When all the hospital beds are full? Never?
As far as effectiveness of a quarantine, it will be effective if it is longer than the average course of the virus. 1 month? People just exposed will have time to show symptoms (or not) and then build antibodies so as not to be contagious. Very ill people can be identified and taken to the hospital without infecting others. Grocery/pharmacy/medical workers need to use PPE and be tested. If we had sufficient tests we could coordinate with other states and actually snuff this thing out. Even without tests, though, we can put the breaks on it. If we do nothing but pump the breaks once in a while we can keep the numbers from growing too large at any given time.
Maybe this strategy *can* be applied to other needless deaths. Maybe we as a society should be more proactive about people dying from flu or auto accidents. Highways speeds have been limited and seat belts required, both of which restrict freedoms and save lives. I guess it's about where you draw the line, and I'm curious where you do.
If you disagree, where do you personally draw the line? After community spread is tested and growing? When all the hospital beds are full? Never?
As far as effectiveness of a quarantine, it will be effective if it is longer than the average course of the virus. 1 month? People just exposed will have time to show symptoms (or not) and then build antibodies so as not to be contagious. Very ill people can be identified and taken to the hospital without infecting others. Grocery/pharmacy/medical workers need to use PPE and be tested. If we had sufficient tests we could coordinate with other states and actually snuff this thing out. Even without tests, though, we can put the breaks on it. If we do nothing but pump the breaks once in a while we can keep the numbers from growing too large at any given time.
Maybe this strategy *can* be applied to other needless deaths. Maybe we as a society should be more proactive about people dying from flu or auto accidents. Highways speeds have been limited and seat belts required, both of which restrict freedoms and save lives. I guess it's about where you draw the line, and I'm curious where you do.