3 ms·

I understand the desire to get home, but, doesn’t that defeat the whole purpose if quarantine? The virus doesn’t care that you’re not at home.

frosted-flakes 7y ago
People still gotta live, and if they weren't planning on it, they probably won't have the resources to extend overseas trips indefinitely. In any case, in Canada all travellers are required to self-isolate for two weeks upon arrival.
standardUser 7y ago
The "whole purpose" of lockdowns are to reduce the transmission rate to a manageable level. Not to zero. Broad but imperfect compliance has proven to be more than sufficient to achieve this. Many nations are now loosening restrictions because the transmission rate has been pushed so low that there is room to increase it without overwhelming healthcare capacity.
- Zhyl 7y ago
  Yes, to put this in perspective, each person has 'x' transmission opportunities on every journey to/from their lockdown base. 'x' can be expressed as 'x = n + m' for n people they would meet along their journey plus m people that have interacted and potentially infected every surface they touch. n and m are smaller for every journey not taken. MUCH smaller if people are broadly compliant with lockdown. Therefore, even people breaking lockdown (justifiably or unjustifiably) are at reduced risk of transmission if other people are obeying lockdown.
  - dkersten 7y ago
    Right, but at least anecdotally, all of the first ~20 or so cases where I am were linked to people flying home from Italy.
    - Zhyl 7y ago
      Yeah, reality is a weird mix of probability (reducing trips and therefore likelihood of catching 2019-nCov off of them) and actuality (the path the virus actually takes - see Patient 31 [1]). Governments have to release guidance based on the former, but individuals might want to protect against the latter where possible. [1] https://graphics.reuters.com/CHINA-HEALTH-SOUTHKOREA-CLUSTERS/0100B5G33SB/index.html https://graphics.reuters.com/CHINA-HEALTH-SOUTHKOREA-CLUSTER...
kijin 7y ago
A person at home with enough food and toilet paper to last a couple of weeks might have fewer contacts with other people over that period than a person who is stuck in a hotel in another city and constantly needs to have things delivered to, and taken away from, their room by other people. If the difference is large enough, it makes sense to send that person home.

frosted-flakes 7y ago

People still gotta live, and if they weren't planning on it, they probably won't have the resources to extend overseas trips indefinitely. In any case, in Canada all travellers are required to self-isolate for two weeks upon arrival.

standardUser 7y ago

The "whole purpose" of lockdowns are to reduce the transmission rate to a manageable level. Not to zero. Broad but imperfect compliance has proven to be more than sufficient to achieve this. Many nations are now loosening restrictions because the transmission rate has been pushed so low that there is room to increase it without overwhelming healthcare capacity.

Zhyl 7y ago
Yes, to put this in perspective, each person has 'x' transmission opportunities on every journey to/from their lockdown base. 'x' can be expressed as 'x = n + m' for n people they would meet along their journey plus m people that have interacted and potentially infected every surface they touch. n and m are smaller for every journey not taken. MUCH smaller if people are broadly compliant with lockdown. Therefore, even people breaking lockdown (justifiably or unjustifiably) are at reduced risk of transmission if other people are obeying lockdown.
- dkersten 7y ago
  Right, but at least anecdotally, all of the first ~20 or so cases where I am were linked to people flying home from Italy.
  - Zhyl 7y ago
    Yeah, reality is a weird mix of probability (reducing trips and therefore likelihood of catching 2019-nCov off of them) and actuality (the path the virus actually takes - see Patient 31 [1]). Governments have to release guidance based on the former, but individuals might want to protect against the latter where possible. [1] https://graphics.reuters.com/CHINA-HEALTH-SOUTHKOREA-CLUSTERS/0100B5G33SB/index.html https://graphics.reuters.com/CHINA-HEALTH-SOUTHKOREA-CLUSTER...

kijin 7y ago

A person at home with enough food and toilet paper to last a couple of weeks might have fewer contacts with other people over that period than a person who is stuck in a hotel in another city and constantly needs to have things delivered to, and taken away from, their room by other people. If the difference is large enough, it makes sense to send that person home.