4 ms·

If you look at highly infectious diseases that were effectively eradicated, most either ran their course and infected hundreds of millions (Spanish flu, swine f

If you look at highly infectious diseases that were effectively eradicated, most either ran their course and infected hundreds of millions (Spanish flu, swine flu), or were eradicated with both quarantine and vaccination (Smallpox, rinderpest). I would be very interested if you could find an example of a highly contagious disease that was stopped without a cure or vaccine [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eradication_of_infectious_diseases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eradication_of_infectious_dise...

ajross 7y ago
You're measuring the wrong thing. Quarantine isn't an attempt to "eradicate" this disease. Like you say, it's likely to become a pandemic and infect hundreds of millions or more. You quarantine to halt the rate of infection and give your health care facilities time to care for the seriously infected. And that saves lives. A lot. It can save a lot of lives.
- lend000 7y ago
  That's the conventional wisdom, but as I mentioned in another comment on this thread, I'm not convinced that's the case, especially with a contagion that is most dangerous to less active people.
  - ajross 7y ago
    Then with all due respect, you really need to cite someone expert on the subject. Seriously public health policy folks are universally recommending social isolation (of which quarantine is the most expensive variant), and it has worked. Who exactly leads you to believe that this isn't working? This is a poor time for armchair analysis when we're looking at worst case scenarios involving millions of deaths.
    - lend000 7y ago
      This is an online forum for technically minded people -- none of these comments result in prescribing public policy. Like you, I am only an armchair expert in this particular field, but it seems like a perfectly fine medium to discuss and debate new hypotheses. Not every idea needs to be put forward by someone with the right badge to be worth discussing, especially on an open forum, so please don't try to limit intellectual discussion simply because of fear.

ajross 7y ago

You're measuring the wrong thing. Quarantine isn't an attempt to "eradicate" this disease. Like you say, it's likely to become a pandemic and infect hundreds of millions or more. You quarantine to halt the rate of infection and give your health care facilities time to care for the seriously infected. And that saves lives. A lot. It can save a lot of lives.

lend000 7y ago
That's the conventional wisdom, but as I mentioned in another comment on this thread, I'm not convinced that's the case, especially with a contagion that is most dangerous to less active people.
- ajross 7y ago
  Then with all due respect, you really need to cite someone expert on the subject. Seriously public health policy folks are universally recommending social isolation (of which quarantine is the most expensive variant), and it has worked. Who exactly leads you to believe that this isn't working? This is a poor time for armchair analysis when we're looking at worst case scenarios involving millions of deaths.
  - lend000 7y ago
    This is an online forum for technically minded people -- none of these comments result in prescribing public policy. Like you, I am only an armchair expert in this particular field, but it seems like a perfectly fine medium to discuss and debate new hypotheses. Not every idea needs to be put forward by someone with the right badge to be worth discussing, especially on an open forum, so please don't try to limit intellectual discussion simply because of fear.