6 ms·

Quarantine for what? That's what you do with sick people. Whatever is going on in Australia has long ago left the realm of sane quarantine procedure. It will be

Quarantine for what? That's what you do with sick people. Whatever is going on in Australia has long ago left the realm of sane quarantine procedure. It will be 2022 soon, and the Australians are trying to prevent interstate spread of COVID-19. It's madness. Responding to your edit: still madness

Nursie 5y ago
Quarantine for coronavirus, in a pandemic that’s claimed millions of lives. You quarantine people (and animal) who might be sick, that’s the point of it. It doesn’t look like madness to me when you look at the comparative death rates.
- kongin 5y ago
  > Quarantine for coronavirus, in a pandemic that’s claimed millions of lives. So are we going to do a quarantine for the flu next? A pandemic that claims up to a 2 million lives a year globally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017%E2%80%932018_United_States_flu_season https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017%E2%80%932018_United_State...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - docmars 5y ago
    Precisely. It is the best cover up for global domination while distracting populations with concern trolling around a virus that is not all that significantly worse than the flu given the level of risk across all age groups. Heart failure and car accidents claim a higher risk.
  - DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
    For pandemic flu, yes, quarantine would be reasonable. The 1918 pandemic claimed tens of millions of lives.
    - kongin 5y ago
      The 2017 flu season killed 200 Americans per million, world wide that amounts to 1,400,000 people. Should we have locked down in 2017?
      - DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
        Which means that CoVID-19 has had about 10 times the impact as seasonal flu. That's extremely serious.
        kongin 5y ago
        Which means that a bad flu season has had about 10% the impact of covid. That's extremely serious. Should we have locked down in 2017? What number of deaths is the magic one where we decide that it's too much and we need to close everything for years on end?
        DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
        There's no magic number, but CoVID-19 is the most serious public health emergency in probably a century. > we need to close everything for years on end? Countries that properly managed the pandemic locked down hard for a few weeks, eliminated the virus, and then reopened. They've been back to normal (or something close to it) for most of the time since.
        kongin 5y ago
        > There's no magic number, but CoVID-19 is the most serious public health emergency in probably a century. Do you know what AIDS is? Unlike Covid which kills something under 1 in 100 people it infects AIDS until the mid 90s was a death sentence for anyone who got it. I remember being in an emergency room and the nurse asking for people to give blood because their blood banks were tainted and the doctors could either let patients die from from blood loss or in 10 years from AIDS. I have no idea why that whole pandemic has been pushed down the memory hole. It's like everyone born after 1985 doesn't even know what it is, let alone what it was like to see people you know just wilt and die. >Countries that properly managed the pandemic locked down hard for a few weeks, eliminated the virus, and then reopened. They've been back to normal (or something close to it) for most of the time since. Countries that don't have it keep having to lock down for two weeks every three months. NZ is the most successful and they are currently in their 5th national lockdown.
iamthemonster 5y ago
I'm in Western Australia. I'm delighted with prevention of interstate Covid. The freedom to do whatever you want is pretty enjoyable to be honest, and not worrying that family members will die of Covid is even better.
- logicchains 5y ago
  Do you worry about family members in lockdowned states drinking themselves to death? In Canada lockdowns killed more under-65s than covid: https://tnc.news/2021/07/18/lockdowns-killed-more-canadians-under-65-than-covid-19-statscan/ https://tnc.news/2021/07/18/lockdowns-killed-more-canadians-...
  - chitowneats 5y ago
    New South Wales has a solution for this. Limit the alcohol allowance of individuals under lockdown: https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/news/nsw-health-limits-residents-of-lockeddown-tower-block-to-six-beers-per-day/news-story/0e387ceccee145a611ddb6e38872d3d5 https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/news/nsw-health-lim... I wish this was a joke, or fake news. But no, once they control where you can go, when you can go there, etc, it's not a big jump for them to demand control over what you put in your body. It's for your own safety, after all.
  - bernulli 5y ago
    Of course it did, exactly because there was a lockdown that prevented many COVID deaths. If there hadn't been a lockdown, many more people would have died from COVID than now died from drinking. Sweden for example, famous for its non-lockdown, suffered 10 times as many COVID deaths than neighboring Norway with lock-down (and alcohol).
DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
Quarantine has never been strictly for sick people. It is for people who might possibly be infected. You can see this in the etymolgy of the word "quarantine": it refers to the forty days (quarantena in Venetian) that people arriving by ship were required to wait on board before disembarking in Venice during the time of the plague. The whole idea is to wait for the full incubation period of a pathogen, to make sure someone is not infected, before letting them out in the general society. In contrast, when someone is separated from society because they are known to be infected, that is called "isolation."
- chitowneats 5y ago
  I'm familiar with the etymology. This makes a lot of sense for the bubonic plague. Frankly the Venetians would scoff at what we've done to our societies over a disease so tame (measured by overall rate of survival, individual circumstances can be tragic). It was also an era when people had few rights, no vaccines, no access to treatment. Surely, we should aspire to be better than 14th-century Venice. To not treat people as if they are nothing more than viral vectors. Instead many would trade away what little control over our own lives we still have in exchange for imagined safety from a virus we will all contract eventually. That the vast majority of people have no issues recovering from. It's not the plague. It's not Ebola. It's not the worst case scenario we were rightfully concerned about in early 2020. How this hasn't sunk in yet for most people is just baffling to me. Then I look around and see lots of motivated reasoning and state-sponsored propaganda about a permanent transition to remote work, increased government surveillance, curtailing the movement of citizens, and other social initiatives various coalitions were already working towards, that are of course suddenly "absolutely necessary" because of a "once in a lifetime pandemic", and it becomes a little clearer.
  - docmars 5y ago
    Spot on, and once the endless waves of variants no longer convince the submissive within our populations that all of these massive changes to life are necessary, the same measures will be used during a questionably endless "climate crisis" to justify the retention of this newfound power they've gained. 1. https://ktrh.iheart.com/content/2021-06-01-after-covid-lockdowns-are-climate-lockdowns-next/ https://ktrh.iheart.com/content/2021-06-01-after-covid-lockd... 2. https://hotair.com/jazz-shaw/2021/09/07/out-covid-lockdowns-in-climate-change-lockdowns-n414196 https://hotair.com/jazz-shaw/2021/09/07/out-covid-lockdowns-... 3. https://www.guardiangazette.com/2021/08/30/climate-lockdowns-coming-soon-after-dhhs-declarers-climate-change-a-public-health-issue/ https://www.guardiangazette.com/2021/08/30/climate-lockdowns... And for those who aren't convinced, I'll be available to accept apologies at my nearest concentration camp.

Nursie 5y ago

Quarantine for coronavirus, in a pandemic that’s claimed millions of lives. You quarantine people (and animal) who might be sick, that’s the point of it. It doesn’t look like madness to me when you look at the comparative death rates.

kongin 5y ago
> Quarantine for coronavirus, in a pandemic that’s claimed millions of lives. So are we going to do a quarantine for the flu next? A pandemic that claims up to a 2 million lives a year globally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017%E2%80%932018_United_States_flu_season https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017%E2%80%932018_United_State...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- docmars 5y ago
  Precisely. It is the best cover up for global domination while distracting populations with concern trolling around a virus that is not all that significantly worse than the flu given the level of risk across all age groups. Heart failure and car accidents claim a higher risk.
- DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
  For pandemic flu, yes, quarantine would be reasonable. The 1918 pandemic claimed tens of millions of lives.
  - kongin 5y ago
    The 2017 flu season killed 200 Americans per million, world wide that amounts to 1,400,000 people. Should we have locked down in 2017?
    - DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
      Which means that CoVID-19 has had about 10 times the impact as seasonal flu. That's extremely serious.
      - kongin 5y ago
        Which means that a bad flu season has had about 10% the impact of covid. That's extremely serious. Should we have locked down in 2017? What number of deaths is the magic one where we decide that it's too much and we need to close everything for years on end?
        DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
        There's no magic number, but CoVID-19 is the most serious public health emergency in probably a century. > we need to close everything for years on end? Countries that properly managed the pandemic locked down hard for a few weeks, eliminated the virus, and then reopened. They've been back to normal (or something close to it) for most of the time since.
        kongin 5y ago
        > There's no magic number, but CoVID-19 is the most serious public health emergency in probably a century. Do you know what AIDS is? Unlike Covid which kills something under 1 in 100 people it infects AIDS until the mid 90s was a death sentence for anyone who got it. I remember being in an emergency room and the nurse asking for people to give blood because their blood banks were tainted and the doctors could either let patients die from from blood loss or in 10 years from AIDS. I have no idea why that whole pandemic has been pushed down the memory hole. It's like everyone born after 1985 doesn't even know what it is, let alone what it was like to see people you know just wilt and die. >Countries that properly managed the pandemic locked down hard for a few weeks, eliminated the virus, and then reopened. They've been back to normal (or something close to it) for most of the time since. Countries that don't have it keep having to lock down for two weeks every three months. NZ is the most successful and they are currently in their 5th national lockdown.

iamthemonster 5y ago

I'm in Western Australia. I'm delighted with prevention of interstate Covid. The freedom to do whatever you want is pretty enjoyable to be honest, and not worrying that family members will die of Covid is even better.

logicchains 5y ago
Do you worry about family members in lockdowned states drinking themselves to death? In Canada lockdowns killed more under-65s than covid: https://tnc.news/2021/07/18/lockdowns-killed-more-canadians-under-65-than-covid-19-statscan/ https://tnc.news/2021/07/18/lockdowns-killed-more-canadians-...
- chitowneats 5y ago
  New South Wales has a solution for this. Limit the alcohol allowance of individuals under lockdown: https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/news/nsw-health-limits-residents-of-lockeddown-tower-block-to-six-beers-per-day/news-story/0e387ceccee145a611ddb6e38872d3d5 https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/news/nsw-health-lim... I wish this was a joke, or fake news. But no, once they control where you can go, when you can go there, etc, it's not a big jump for them to demand control over what you put in your body. It's for your own safety, after all.
- bernulli 5y ago
  Of course it did, exactly because there was a lockdown that prevented many COVID deaths. If there hadn't been a lockdown, many more people would have died from COVID than now died from drinking. Sweden for example, famous for its non-lockdown, suffered 10 times as many COVID deaths than neighboring Norway with lock-down (and alcohol).

DiogenesKynikos 5y ago

Quarantine has never been strictly for sick people. It is for people who might possibly be infected. You can see this in the etymolgy of the word "quarantine": it refers to the forty days (quarantena in Venetian) that people arriving by ship were required to wait on board before disembarking in Venice during the time of the plague. The whole idea is to wait for the full incubation period of a pathogen, to make sure someone is not infected, before letting them out in the general society. In contrast, when someone is separated from society because they are known to be infected, that is called "isolation."

chitowneats 5y ago
I'm familiar with the etymology. This makes a lot of sense for the bubonic plague. Frankly the Venetians would scoff at what we've done to our societies over a disease so tame (measured by overall rate of survival, individual circumstances can be tragic). It was also an era when people had few rights, no vaccines, no access to treatment. Surely, we should aspire to be better than 14th-century Venice. To not treat people as if they are nothing more than viral vectors. Instead many would trade away what little control over our own lives we still have in exchange for imagined safety from a virus we will all contract eventually. That the vast majority of people have no issues recovering from. It's not the plague. It's not Ebola. It's not the worst case scenario we were rightfully concerned about in early 2020. How this hasn't sunk in yet for most people is just baffling to me. Then I look around and see lots of motivated reasoning and state-sponsored propaganda about a permanent transition to remote work, increased government surveillance, curtailing the movement of citizens, and other social initiatives various coalitions were already working towards, that are of course suddenly "absolutely necessary" because of a "once in a lifetime pandemic", and it becomes a little clearer.
- docmars 5y ago
  Spot on, and once the endless waves of variants no longer convince the submissive within our populations that all of these massive changes to life are necessary, the same measures will be used during a questionably endless "climate crisis" to justify the retention of this newfound power they've gained. 1. https://ktrh.iheart.com/content/2021-06-01-after-covid-lockdowns-are-climate-lockdowns-next/ https://ktrh.iheart.com/content/2021-06-01-after-covid-lockd... 2. https://hotair.com/jazz-shaw/2021/09/07/out-covid-lockdowns-in-climate-change-lockdowns-n414196 https://hotair.com/jazz-shaw/2021/09/07/out-covid-lockdowns-... 3. https://www.guardiangazette.com/2021/08/30/climate-lockdowns-coming-soon-after-dhhs-declarers-climate-change-a-public-health-issue/ https://www.guardiangazette.com/2021/08/30/climate-lockdowns... And for those who aren't convinced, I'll be available to accept apologies at my nearest concentration camp.