Replies

“We understand microbiology, we understand immunology, and we want strong immune systems,” Dr. Erickson told reporters, rebuffing inconsistent shelter-in-place orders . “I don’t want to stay in my home and develop a weak immune system, and then come out and get a disease.”
Erickson noted that quarantining the healthy is like nothing he’s seen before. “We decided to keep people at home and isolate them, even though everything we’ve studied about quarantine, typically you quarantine the sick,” he explained. “When someone has measles you quarantine them. We’ve never seen the healthy, where you take those without disease and without symptoms and lock them in your home. So, some of these things from what we’ve studied from immunology and microbiology aren’t really meshing with what we know as people of scientific minds who read this stuff.”
jazminerose: "Because I do this sort of thing, I looked up some definitions, using a disease prevention context.
You cannot *quarantine* healthy people.
You cannot *lockdown* healthy people.
The only word I found that fit our present situation is *internment*.
Thanks to HotHunt for the above great visual!
If people want to stay home, let them! NO ONE wants to force them to go out!
Easy - if you as a small business owner don’t feel safe - don’t open.*
Easy - If you as an individual don’t feel safe with things opening up - don’t go out.*

*PeteB570

The rationale for quarantining the healthy was that the incubation period was supposedly two weeks, maybe four or heck, even six! (because they knew nothing about this virus when they put us all in house arrest) so you could have no symptoms and walk around spreading it for that long. Plus 80% have no symptoms anyway so they could be spreading it too.

Basically they scared people into not trusting their neighbors and businesses. Of course vast numbers of us have had minimal contact with the outside world for weeks now so the odds any of us are carrying this virus is nil. Yet we remain on house arrest.