From: Alex Ramonsky (alex@ramonsky.com)
Date: Fri Apr 11 2003 - 10:03:48 MDT
The biggest argument against quarantine is the 'exposure creates
immunity' idea, the theory being that if you let a virus spread
naturally (where there's a large majority survival rate, immunity takes
care of itself, genetically.) Cold, but true. If you isolate anything
you give it a chance to mutate through reinfection and survive, and if
it gets _out_, everybody's dead. The trouble with quarantine is it needs
to be 100% tight; nobody in, nobody out. If everyone inside dies, tough.
The trouble with humans, is there is no way you are ever going to
achieve that. I'd go with option one, with the proviso that everyone is
given as much information as possible and allowed to take steps as they
see fit to protect themselves.
I see it as a case of 'the needs of the many'...
AR
Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
>The NY Times is discussing the merit and attitudes towards
>quarantines of people exposed to SARS.
>
>April 11, 2003
>Hong Kong Officials Resist Wide Quarantine for Mystery Illness
>By KEITH BRADSHER
>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/science/sciencespecial/11QUAR.html?pagewanted=print
>
>I'm a bit surprised there hasn't been more discussion about
>this on the list. Quarantines obviously run counter to libertarian
>philosophy. After all -- governments effectively "imprisoning"
>people??? But at the same time its hard to be a libertarian
>if one ends up dead from exposure to the latest "nouveaux"
>disease.
>
>Also worth noting is that the SARS death toll seems to be running
>about neck and neck with the "coalition" forces death toll in the
>Iraqi Freedom war (IFW). But given a doubling time of ~15 days (at
>least in recent weeks) one has to wonder *when* will the death toll
>from SARS surpass the entire death toll in the IFW?
>
>Robert
>
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 11 2003 - 10:06:06 MDT