[Ithaca37]

Just a thought, we are discussing Typhoid Mary (Mary Mallon) in my english class, we have to write about quarantine and whether or not it should be an option ever. I say yes, but am interested in what others think. SHOULD AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS KNOWN TO BE CARRYING OR INFECTED WITH A CONTAGOUS DISEASE (ONLY SERIOUS ONES) BE LOCKED AWAY UNTIL THEY NO LONGER POSE A THREAT, EVEN IF THAT MEANS THE REST OF THEIR NATURAL LIVES? :wink:

 

[sremington]

Well, I guess I would have to know more about the situation and the seriousness of the disease. You pointed out serious ones so I would have to agree with quarantines. Unfortunately it is not a very nice way to play out the rest of your life but I think 50 sick people is better than 50 million sick people.

We don't have to drop them off on a deserted island letting them fend for themselves. There is always the option of State and Federal funding for more comfortable facilities which is quarantined.

Only protected people can enter and exit the facility after thorough examination. These are just some ideas. Of course it should be our nature for the healthy to take care of the sick and therefore we could raise money through donations for funding or raise taxes which we all love...

If there was such an outbreak that required such actions there would be relief funds such as the Katrina fund, the tsunami fund, etc...

 

[Ithaca37]

They put Typhoid Mary in a facility on an island off shore from NY, the facility was a state of the art (in 1906) hospital. Like you said, 50 sick people having their lives screwed up is better than 500 or 50 million.

As far as diseases go, the gov't has a list of quarantinable diseases, that include TB and SARS among several others, I think they need to include AIDS, it would put an end to the spread of it if they locked these people up, they are a danger to society.

 

[sremington]

I agree with those infected with HIV but the problem is there are millions of victims who do not know they are infected. In most cases the virus is spread before they know they are even infected. In only a handful of cases sick and twisted people know they have the virus but still choose to not tell a partner.

The only way we would be able to really buckle down on HIV is if there were mandatory testing quite frequently.

In a small handful of cases you could be a carrier but not actually diagnosed with AIDS. Are these people in need of quarantine even if they never get infected but will always be a carrier.

You need to also think about incubation periods where a person may be infected with HIV but comes out negative after testing. Sometimes in a few cases there are a few months up to a year or so that you may be infected with HIV but will show up Negative on a test because of the incubation period.

This would then require more frequent testing that is mandatory. And how do you catch those that decide to live off the grid??

I am not saying it is impossible or I disagree with you, but it would be a very difficult thing to do when it came right down to HIV quarantining.

 

[Ithaca37]

No doubt it would be difficult, but if all of those who are known to be infected or carriers were to be locked up and denied acces to the outside world, there would be a dramatic drop in the rate of spread. Unfortunately these people would be quaratined for life, but they knew the risk before they screwed around (pun intended). Aids is predominantly spread through sexual contact, unlike what the public schools are telling the children, don't fornicate or adulterate, and you probably have nothing to fear, but there is the possibilty of coming in contact with HIV positive blood, these people are dangerous and need to be locked up. Regardless f how they handle themselves before or after they are aware of their conditon, they still pose a risk to my health and everybody elses health, they are akin to lepers, they shouldn't be allowed to roam the streets with the rst of us. That is not to say we leave them to fend for themselves, but lets see to it that they are provided with as little chance possible to spread their disease.

 

[sremington]

I am not very sympathetic either about those infected with HIV as we all know the risks these days. Unfortunately we have to take responsibility for our actions even if it means we were irresponsible 10 or even 20 years ago. Sometimes it takes that long to take effect.

I think spending the money to go towards a more pro-active approach would be better spent than spending money on a re-active approach.

For instance having unprotected sex with the understanding that if anything were to happen you would be whisked away to a facility funded by our government isn't really that bad of a reprocussion for our irresponsible actions.

Instead of funding these facilities we should put the funding towards "accurate education", and towards ways of preventing the spread. Not sure how I would implement that but it would be more than just saying hey let's provide condoms in our school bathrooms... duh!!

But back to quarantining, I would say if that is what it came down to then yes it is a necessary evil of a 'means to an end...'

 

[Ithaca37]

You are correct, instilling biblical morals in children is the first step to ending our problems......until then quarantine them all.

 

[Moose]

I see little need to lock folks away who have HIV. I work with folks every day that have it and for the most part they are very responsible to avoid infecting others. There are from time to time those who have it and will purposely go out and try to infect others and that’s where law enforcement needs to step in as well as the courts.
I guess when you talk about infectious diseases there are some far worse ones then HIV. Look at flu outbreaks there is some serious strains that will kill lots of folks. How many of us cause we’re rather healthy go out when we’re a bit under the weather and risk passing this to someone elderly or with a reduced immune system? You want to see something that should scare ya look at the new TB and how fast its spreading and becoming stronger because folks are non compliant with following the medication regiment. The same goes for simple infections when we do not complete the antibiotic regiment that are doctor has prescribed and we stop them when we feel better. Alls that does is strengthen the bug to be resistant to antibiotics in the future.

 

[kenton6]

Ithaca, you've opened a can of worms!
I understand what you are saying but there are several problems that arise. To institute quarantines, the government, who is the one responsible for such things, would need to determine National security.

This in itself is a problem because I don't have much faith that they know how to deem such activity necessary.

Aids is one disease that affects many people other than just immoral lifestyle and it is debatable as to whether it is truly a National security risk. I might detect from the tone of your text that you have more issues with the lifestyle than the disease itself, which is good.

As moose pointed out, there are presently diseases that have the potential to strike so fast and are very deadly we would not have time to quarentine anyone.

Another problem that occurs with such actions as quarantine is people will fefuse to go for treatment out of fear of being "locked up". This act in itself is a very dangerous one and can have devastating effects.

Quarantining humans is a difficult thing to do and is not a simple act either. To me, the determining factor would be whether or not any disease is considered a national risk and what to use for criteria for that is as difficult as attempting to institute a quarantine.

 

[Ithaca37]

While you are right about my disaproval of this lifestyle, that is not why I suggest they be locked up. The fact that contraction of the virus is a death sentence is reason enough to worry about it. HIV poses as much of a health risk as any other disease, from TB to SARS to Ebola. Yes, SARS is defined as a quarantinable disease by the US gov't.

As far as going out with the flu, it is not the same as AIDS, the number of people with compromised immune systems is not nearly as large as the number susceptable to AIDS.

 

[kenton6]

Found this and thought it might interest you.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171230,00.html

 

[Ithaca37]

Interesting piece thanks.