During a pandemic, anyone who poses a risk of transmitting the disease is a serious danger to those around them. The usual answer to this is quarantine rules, which historically have been pretty blunt thanks to poor knowledge of how disease transmission works and the lack of any alternatives. But thanks to advances in medical science we're luckier today: in the case of COVID-19 you have a choice of quarantine or getting a quick, safe vaccination.
Importantly, the quarantine option is still available. This is historically the way governments have addressed infectious disease, and there's literally no one who thinks that governments don't have the power to enforce quarantines during an epidemic.
In other words, there's no mandate for anyone to get vaccinated or tested. But if you don't, you're a danger to those around you. What's more, you remain a part of the potential disease pool, which poses a risk of breeding deadlier varieties of COVID-19. For those reasons, the government is fully within its authority to insist that you remain in quarantine until the emergency has passed.
Got it?
The problem, of course, is that there is an almost zero chance that there are quarantines at the state or federal level. Not because they can't (though we have a very different SCOTUS so precedent may not mean much), but because it would be political suicide. We have fights breaking out over kids wearing masks in school, could you imagine the response when people are quarantined?
I’m sympathetic to the notion, but it is unrealistic as a practical matter.
I think you could probably raise liberal volunteers to enforce this in some places.
I suspect you could find just as many liberal volunteers to oppose it. It just isn’t something done “for real” in western liberal democracies these days.
It’s being done pretty much everywhere. You cannot travel to any number of countries, including the European Union, if your are unvaccinated and come from a country where Covid-19 is raging out of control. We should do the same buy limited the domestic travel of unvaccinated persons seeking to leave pro- Covid-19 states.
(Which, as an aside, should definitely include morons who go to Sturgis, SD and who should stay there until the plague is over)
What about closing the wide open southern border?
Lol, nope. Not enough "liberals" would even support this. Limo liberals like yourself are morons. Can't await for leftists to attack you. Calling for your execution.
I bet you could. We could let them wear armbands.
This is exactly why the Republicans bullied the White House very early on to eschew vaccine passports. The only solution is to exclude the voluntarily unvaccinated from nonessential activities. Nearly as important would be to prevent unvaccinated people from leaving states that have become centers of the plague.
Why did you waste your time with this?
Republican governors and legislators are never going to do this and eveb if trifecta blues did, there are practical barriers to doing so with out of state visitors.
I could care less about Repubtards. Just the stupid notion is dumb. But please bring in dialectical nonsense.
Ah, but bringing in dialectical nonsense is your specialty!
Ditto yourself. You don't seem truth.
There is no right to travel from those states during a public health emergency. There is no “freedom” to infect others with a deadly virus in the middle of a pandemic. Whoever happens to be in Florida can stay in Florida.
98% recovery rate and you want quarantine??? Bhahahs
2% (sic) fatality rate and you don't?
Nope, 2% recovery rate in total. .6% deaths, 1.4% long term symptoms.
.6% fatality rate and you don't?
The person is a moron trying to improve his image by acting like a troll.
Sorry but you are a liar. Death rate is 2%. Permanent damage is more like 6%.
The line in the constitution about 'promote the general Welfare' pretty much covers it.
That would on its face also cover mandatory flu vaccination and a host of other items along the proverbial slope.
Like Polio vaccination? Horrors.
Did the federal government ever try to mandate polio vaccination? Admittedly, when I received it I was too young to know about such things, but near as I can tell all the usual things for which we vaccinate are mandated at either the state or school district level.
You couldn’t go to school if you didn’t have a slew of vaccinations. Just as it was difficult, if not impossible, to travel abroad without the smallpox vaccination and other vaccinations. I my childhood and some of my adult life in possession of a tattered yellow card documenting all of that.
Not a lawyer, but traditionally it has primarily been the states that have enforced quarentines. The law involving the federal government enforcing a quarentine is not as clear.
Sound good to me. 🙂
"you remain a part of the potential disease pool, which poses a risk of breeding deadlier varieties of COVID-19"
Isn't this true even for us who are vaccinated? I have not seen where a study shows vaccinated people are less likely to carry or transmit the disease.
Vaccinated people are both less likely to carry and less likely to transmit the virus. But, more importantly for the question of breeding variants, people who are vaccinated carry the virus for much less time than someone who is unvaccinated. The chances of creating a more dangerous variant is a function of the number of times the virus reproduces. Reduce the length of the infection, and you reduce the number of times the virus can reproduce.
Many studies showing you are less likely to get infected. Which pretty much proves the claim
I think indefinitely quarantining people who are not ill would raise significant questions. I mean, I suppose you could call it a quarantine, but I think "internment" would be the more typical description.
It's not like being vaccinated means you can't spread COVID; it just means you won't personally get as sick. (Hence the re-imposition fo mask mandates for the vaccinated.)
Yes, the days when a Typhoid Mary could be held for a total of nearly three decades on an island are long gone. I don't think that we have a large enough island for today's anti-mask & anti-vaccine people - & I want Guantanamo closed & returned to the Cuban government.
But I'm wondering why a report about an 85% infertility problem attributed to the correct use of the Ivermectin for legitimate disease treatment in African men hasn't perturbed some of those insisting on using even the much heavier livestock dosage?
Regarding the 85% infertility, a Reuter's fact check today says: "No evidence. According to the FDA, infertility is not currently a known side-effect of ivermectin. A Nigerian study from 2011 that concluded ivermectin was related to a decrease in sperm function evaluated only a small sample of 37 patients who had been diagnosed with river blindness."
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-ivermectin-nigerianstudy/fact-check-fda-says-male-infertility-is-not-a-known-side-effect-of-ivermectin-idUSL1N2QC1MT
And I should have searched for the one I read & others, so appreciate your providing a correction by Reuters.
Surprised that the original was based on such a small sample.
90-95 per cent of the people under treatment couldn't be included in the study because the disease had already caused fertility problems.
Yes, the days when a Typhoid Mary could be held for a total of nearly three decades on an island are long gone.
I think that even if the Typhoid Mary precedent is still in force, extending it from "demonstrably contagious" to "has a somewhat higher than average chance of being contagious" is a major extension.
The disease they were being treated for causes fertility problems.
There are lots of practical reasons listed in prior comments why a quarantine order won't happen. If it does come to pass, there's another consideration. You say: "there's literally no one who thinks that governments don't have the power to enforce quarantines during an epidemic." WRONG. Many (maybe most) republican judges will gleefully say there isn't, or at least re-set the bar for approving them to be so high as to be unattainable. If there is one thing the current Supreme Court and Trump appellate judges have taught us, it's that rules are made to be ignored and/or re-written, and facts to be made up or re-weighed, to achieve the desired right-wing end.
Republicans are irrelevant. If you have a quarantine, it would "Contagion" movie style. Executive dictatorship and military cordon. This low grade pandemic doesn't even come close.
Again, another limo liberal slobbering dialectics.
In your opinion 658,000 dead is a low grade pandemic? Then there are no high grade pandemics, just as there are no true Scotsman.
Lolz, 1.9 dead by 1920. Most between the ages of 20-40. Got it yet??? Compare this to oc43, which the WHO also described as a low grade pandemic.
Do you think while you post, or does a brain dead retard describe you? You sound like "Trumpism".
When did the WHO escribe oc43 as a low grad e pandemic. Wikipedia say its one of the coronaviruses that cause the common cold and jumped from cows to humans in the 19th century.
Fwiw, NEVER bring up polls again. It's a lie made up like a embalmed corpse.
I believe those of us who are vaccinated are within our rights to punch the unvaccinated in the nose! Their very existence in my presence is the crime of assault. So I’m allowed to stand my ground.
You could characterize your punch as a defensive maneuver, designed to enforce social distancing, or whatever it takes to get the diseased petri-dish away from you.
Interesting news out of Oregon
https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/oregon-covid-cases-deaths/283-7feb8da8-029a-41a2-bfca-0bee988a08a6
{snip}
OHA has released its weekly breakthrough case data. It found that between Aug. 29 and Sept. 4, 80.7% of the 13,798 reported cases were found in unvaccinated people. There were ********2,657 breakthrough cases.*********
Vaccinated people who have contracted the virus are less likely to have serious symptoms, be hospitalized or die. Local health officials said breakthrough cases who end up hospitalized are mostly people who are otherwise immunocompromised.
Only 4.9% of the state's 16,417 vaccine breakthrough cases have been hospitalized and 0.9% of those cases have died. The median age of those deaths was 80. *********The median age for breakthrough cases is 48*********** and breakthrough cases have been reported in all 36 counties.
{snip}
20% Breakthrough cases is pretty dismal and they are trending younger which is also interesting. Vaccines are working in that they are preventing some serious cases but the current wave of COVID is over powering the immune system of far too many people
And another story out of Fuffalo
40% break throughs in Buffalo
https://buffalonews.com/new...
{snip}
Breakthrough cases of Covid-19 among those who are fully vaccinated are a bigger issue with the Delta variant in Erie County, but the data paint a nuanced picture.
An Erie County Health Department investigation of positive cases over the past three weeks indicates that four out of every 10 cases involved fully vaccinated residents. In addition, local hospital systems continue to report that between 20% and 40% of patients recently hospitalized with Covid-19 also were fully vaccinated.
The breakdown is similar for Covid-19 related deaths, with 70% of county Covid-19 deaths since early July involving residents who were not fully vaccinated and 30% involving residents who were.
{snip}
Just about all the breakthrough deaths were people with severe health issues.
But that is NOT the point.
The virus does NOT care that you have no symptoms, serious symptoms or even fatal symptoms. The more people that have COVID the better the chances of mutations being created.
There's so little information out there to make someone feel comfortable NOT getting vaccinated that it is becoming a "statement" when someone declares they will NOT take COVID seriously.
Is it a political statement? Is it a declaration saying "Hey I'm stupid so I choose NOT to take the vaccine?"
The number of deaths and illness has long passed the threshold of affecting future elections. THAT many have died, and many of them are republicans. I would love to say "good for them" but I can't do that. So, maybe it's time to purge the voter registration polls removing all those republicans who have died since COVID started. Maybe that will wake up the remaining un-vaccinated folks
OT: Another dismal CV19 milestone passed today.
The reported death count in the USA from CV19 reached 677,017 today, passing that of the Spanish 'flu of 675,000 in the USA over 1918-1919.
Of course the actual value is higher - better estimated by the "excess deaths" figure of over 1 million deaths attributable entirely or in part to CV19.
May I just point out that there was no effective vaccine for the 1918-1919 'flu, whereas there are excellent vaccines available for CV19?
If you are trying to say covid is as bad as the Spanish flu , you are way way off base.
First , our population was much smaller back in 1918.
Second, re excess deaths, I really do question the idea that deaths from covid are so undercounted. First of course you have to define what counts as a covid death if you somehow had full knowledge. Based on a normal definition, I will guess we are slightly overcounting covid deaths. If you count as a covid death anyone who dies within 2 months of having the virus, of course you are going to be overcounting those who would have died anyway. Roughly 1 in 1000 people die every month normally. It is just simple math if you estimate a few factors and you get an overcount of maybe around 15-20%. Anyone who denies this or refuses to accept it is just not accepting science .
Now how does that overcount compare to an undercount due to missing covid deaths? That is debatable. Clearly I think we were net undercounting in first covid wave and overcounting now.
And I would also note the excess deaths numbers ( which of course include deaths due to covid restrictions, shutdown and fear and not virus ) are overstated usually in usa as they use a biased base too high number for presumed " normal" deaths.
"there's literally no one who thinks that governments don't have the power to enforce quarantines during an epidemic."
Trust me, every single GOP governor thinks so--or pretends to think so because Trump.
Basically nobody thinks that the state government cannot enforce a quarantine for a serious illness on those who are sick and contagious. Plenty of precedent for that .
But can the federal government require that is a serious question. And , even more, trying to have any government enforce a quarantine on those who are not contagious or have been directly exposed just because they might catch it is unprecedented.
"For those reasons, the government is fully within its authority to insist that you remain in quarantine until the emergency has passed." -- KD
Which "government?" If you mean the federal government, then...
I'll bet you a vigintillion dollars the SCOTUS won't agree with you. Make that two vigintillion dollars.
Note: That's the American vigintillion, not the one those innumerate British use. They're hopeless and they can't even correctly pronounce words in the language they created. Sheesh!
Like they matter.
So, vaccinated people don't get infected and spread the virus? Are you sure about that? (you should check out the data from Israel and UK, did you?)
That data is irrelevant, and in this case, isn't what Drum is talking about. He is talking about crunches unvaxxed people are doing in hospitals. Though, given enough time, they will end.
Well, I think you are the one not getting the point and not thinking straight. Kevin Drum's point is that the unvaxxed should be forced to quarantine, because they are a danger to the people.
Kevin Drum is getting this exactly backwards. It is the vaxxed who are a bigger danger to other people. We know two things by now (I know you don't look at the data, but this is what data shows, isn't we supposed to follow the science (or "science")?) - 1) vaccine DOES NOT protect you from getting and shedding (spreading) the virus, 2) vaccine DOES protect you from severe symptoms (or death). Put 1 and 2 together, vaccines turn vaccinated people into asymptomatic carriers (another word is superspreaders) - you still get sick, but you don't feel it (no symptoms) hence you go around and spread it. Unvaccinated person would most likely have mild symptoms, and would know he/she is sick, stay at home and not infect anybody.
Vaccines were sold on the premise that you need to "protect the community". If you are getting vaccinated, you are protecting yourself at the expense of the community --- you will avoid the ER, but you will infect more other people.
You are simply wrong factually.
Yes vaccinated people can still catch covid and spread the disease. Nobody seriously denies that.
But the vaccine definitely still gives protection from both getting infected and from infecting others if you are infected. It does seem to not be as good there as we initially thoght and hoped, but it does not mean that it is worthless on that score.
Yes, it may be true that vaccinated having an asymptomatic breakthrough case could spread unknowingly, but the fact they are asymptomatic indicates lower viral load and still true that symptoms like sneezing and coughing help spread. And if you think majority of unvaccinated will stay home if they get covid with symptoms like a mild cold , I think you are mistaking. Most of the reasons for being unvaccinated will increase chance of not staying home .
There is just no way that the vaccinated spread more than the unvaccinated .
Plus, looking at stats from different places, while I think it is clear that natural immunity plays as big or bigger role than vaccinations in stopping spread, absolutely clear that high vaccination rates correlate with lower spread.
Now , what is true is that the fact that vaccines appear to be way more effective at stopping illness than stopping spread definitely undermines the argument for mandates and restrictions.
To the extent that the vaccines work well in preventing illness, less justification for forcing unvaccinated to be vaccinated to protect the vaccinated ( they are safe enough) . And hard to justify forcing those who do not want to be vaccinated to protect others who also refuse.
In fact , it is possible that unvaccinated as a group are the ones being less selfish in the end ( in result if not intention) . Possible that natural immunity stays strong enough for a long time or even a lifetime ( at least enough to keep R below 1.0) but vaccine effectiveness wanes in preventing illness . Then if someone is vaccinated, they should be happy with being infected now when the infection will be mild and they can get natural immunity " on the cheap ".
So unvaccinated getting covid and spreading it to vaccinated today, when the vaccine immunity is strong, could be in the end taking the bullett for the vaccinated.
Thanks for your polite response. You make some good points, but on the main point you are still wrong. Lets ask this question, "how many vaccinated and unvaccinated people, respectively, are susceptible to the virus".
Lets estimate 60% of US population vaccinated (54% fully, and lets assume 6% partially, so lets use rough estimate 60&) - http://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+americans+are+vaccinated
"More than 80% of Americans 16 and older have immunity" - https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/02/health/us-coronavirus-thursday/index.html
These two numbers give us
1) 60% of people vaccinated
2) 20% of people unvaccinated, but recovered from covid
3) 20% of people unvaccinated, and never had covid
Next question is, how effective is the vaccine e.g. 6 months after the jab? Effectiveness can measured in terms of "preventing infection" (this means that the person gets infected and is contagious, regardless of if he/she develops symptoms) and "preventing severe symptoms (hospitalization)". It is quite obvious that in terms of "preventing severe symptoms" vaccine is very effective even after 6 months (I saw some numbers from Israel recently (and Israel is 2-3 months ahead of US, meaning whatever happens in Israel now, will happen in US 2-3 months from now) that it is about 85% effective). For "preventing infection" this is harder to know, so lets make an educated guess. We know that effectiveness declines over time. Originally Pfizer/Moderna were 94-95% effective over 3 months, but that was against the Wuhan strain, which went extinct many months ago. It is (much) less effective against Delta. I saw a report from UK that after 2-3 months it is 50-60% effective. I saw reports from Israel that in July (report period covered June/July) that it was 39% effective. Since Israel started in Jan/Feb mass vaccination, lets add another month (beginning of Aug), and some more decline, and estimate that at 6-months it is 30% effective in terms of "preventing infection" (this means 70% ineffective).
Ok, so putting these together, 60% x 0.7 = 43% of population is vaccinated and is susceptible to the virus. Obviously the 20% unvaccinated+never_had_covid are all susceptible. There have been reports from Israel (Israel has been pretty good at collecting and reporting data) that natural immunity (from previous infection) is 13-27 times more effective than vaccine immunity. Lets use the 13 times number. So ineffectiness of natural immunity for preventing infection is 70%/13=5.4%; meaning 1.1% of the population is vaccinated+recovered and susceptible to the virus.
Ok, the balance is
43% of population is vaccinated and susceptible to the virus.
21% of population is unvaccinated and susceptible to the virus.
> There is just no way that the vaccinated spread more than the unvaccinated.
Would you like to reconsider? Do you believe the numbers?
Interestingly, if you want the two numbers to be equal, you need 65% effectiveness of vaccine against infection at 6 months. Now this is something I would say is "no way".
> the fact they are asymptomatic indicates lower viral load
actually, this also does not seem to be true. but this post is long already, so I will leave it at that...
'Now , what is true is that the fact that vaccines appear to be way more effective at stopping illness than stopping spread definitely undermines the argument for mandates and restrictions.
Unless you are talking about masks, distancing, and gathering in large groups... oh wait, that's all restrictions.
" literally no one who thinks that governments don't have the power to enforce quarantines during an epidemic" Sorry, but there isn't a true trump supporter in the country who isn't absolutely convinced that a democrat quarantine is unconstitutional.