Home>Articles>Influenza Pandemic Peer Reviewed Study: ‘There Is No Basis for Quarantine’

Science Lab

Influenza Pandemic Peer Reviewed Study: ‘There Is No Basis for Quarantine’

‘A manageable epidemic could move toward catastrophe’ without strong political and public health leadership

By Katy Grimes, May 18, 2020 2:15 am

‘The ordinary surgical mask does little to prevent inhalation of small droplets bearing influenza virus’

 

A 2006 study on Disease Mitigation Measures in the Control of Pandemic Influenza concluded “there is no basis for recommending quarantine either of groups or individuals.”

The study is authored by Center for Biosecurity of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Baltimore, Maryland COO and Deputy Director Thomas V. Inglesby, MD; Senior Analyst Jennifer B. Nuzzo, SM; CEO and Director Tara O’Toole, MD, MPH; and Distinguished Scholar D. A. Henderson, MD, MPH.

The authors recommend large scale community vaccination as a means of preventing influenza infection. As important, they say the isolation of sick people in home and hospitals, the use of antiviral medications, and of course, hand-washing and respiratory etiquette.

As for the mandatory mask-wearing orders some counties and Mayors are imposing on citizens: “studies have shown that the ordinary surgical mask does little to prevent inhalation of small droplets bearing influenza virus,” the doctors reported. “The pores in the mask become blocked by moisture from breathing, and the air stream simply diverts around the mask.”

The authors found Large-Scale Quarantine Measures, Travel Restrictions Travel restrictions, ineffective and potentially devastating:

A World Health Organization (WHO) Writing Group, after reviewing the literature and considering contemporary international experience, concluded that “forced isolation and quarantine are ineffective and impractical.”2 Despite this recommendation by experts, mandatory large-scale quarantine continues to be considered as an option by some authorities and government officials.35,43 The interest in quarantine reflects the views and conditions prevalent more than 50 years ago, when much less was known about the epidemiology of infectious diseases and when there was far less international and domestic travel in a less densely populated world. It is difficult to identify circumstances in the past half-century when large-scale quarantine has been effectively used in the control of any disease. The negative consequences of large-scale quarantine are so extreme (forced confinement of sick people with the well; complete restriction of movement of large populations; difficulty in getting critical supplies, medicines, and food to people inside the quarantine zone) that this mitigation measure should be eliminated from serious consideration.

Shelter-in-place does not work, these doctors say, and does more harm then good. Forcing people to wear a mask does absolutely nothing unless it is a N95 mask, and then should only be used by medical professionals.

Quarantining healthy people is counter productive.

Cancelling all sporting events, closing schools, killing tourism, killing off “non-essential” businesses does nothing except to destroy the state’s economy and make more Californians dependent on government – which obviously is the goal of Gov. Newsom and the tyrant mayors of the state.

Specifically, the doctors said about Quarantine:

As experience shows, there is no basis for recommending quarantine either of groups or individuals. The problems in implementing such measures are formidable, and secondary effects of absenteeism and community disruption as well as possible adverse consequences, such as loss of public trust in government and stigmatization of quarantined people and groups, are likely to be considerable. Screening passengers at borders or closing air or rail hubs. Experience has shown that these actions are not effective and could have serious adverse consequences; thus, they are not recommended. An overriding principle. Experience has shown that communities faced with epidemics or other adverse events respond best and with the least anxiety when the normal social functioning of the community is least disrupted. Strong political and public health leadership to provide reassurance and to ensure that needed medical care services are provided are critical elements. If either is seen to be less than optimal, a manageable epidemic could move toward catastrophe.

Constitutional attorney Mark Meuser speaks about this peer reviewed study:

Science has spoken, “there is no basis for recommending quarantine either of groups or individuals.” This quote came from a 2006 scientific peer reviewed study done in the United States in reviewing an influenza pandemic. The study also said masks don’t work. Please share if you are tired of Gavin Newsom saying he is just following the science. The science has already spoken, the best thing for Californians is to reopen NOW.

Posted by Mark Meuser on Friday, May 15, 2020

The doctors offer an overriding principle: “Experience has shown that communities faced with epidemics or other adverse events respond best and with the least anxiety when the normal social functioning of the community is least disrupted. Strong political and public health leadership to provide reassurance and to ensure that needed medical care services are provided are critical elements. If either is seen to be less than optimal, a manageable epidemic could move toward catastrophe.”

The total destruction of an economy qualifies as a catastrophe. As Attorney Meuser said, “They can dictate whatever they want if you live in fear.” Californians, experiencing neither strong political or public health leadership, are being lied to.

As the Globe reported April 6th, Many physicians are now saying the lockdown and social distancing orders are preventing herd immunity, and will drag out the course of the virus. “Stanford biophysicist and Nobel laureate Michael Levitt said, ‘The real situation is not as nearly as terrible as they make it out to be.'” Levitt emphasized: “[Y]ou need to think of corona like a severe flu. It is four to eight times as strong as a common flu, and yet, most people will remain healthy and humanity will survive.’”

No comment yet from the governor on the Stanford or USC studies published recently which show that the death rate from the virus is likely to be as low as 0.18% of COVID-19 patients, or lower.

Spread the news:
RELATED ARTICLES
Filter by
Post Page
Highlight Articles Governor Local Sacramento
Sort by

Perspective on Influenza and the Coronavirus

The 2018-2019 flu season, lasting 21 weeks, 61,200 died
March 12, 2020 7:08 pm

18

Sacramento Mayor Steinberg Will Order Masks Worn in Public While Homeless Still Defecate on streets

CDC found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks
May 5, 2020 8:32 am

8

Why I’m Not Wearing A Mask

With a transmission rate of only 0.2% in an active social arena, wearing masks in a casual environment does not
May 5, 2020 6:23 am

8

30 thoughts on “Influenza Pandemic Peer Reviewed Study: ‘There Is No Basis for Quarantine’

  1. Facial masks can trigger asthma attacks and are an even more serious health risk for individuals with COPD. Because asthma skews African American, facial mask orders also have a disparate impact.

  2. We’ve seen plenty of fact-based science about COVID-19, much of it here at The Globe, which has been very helpful and useful for readers here. We’ve also seen that all of it has been completely ignored by the politicians and bureaucrats who dictate policy, which only further confirms that they are not really interested in seeking guidance from ‘science’ or even ‘logic’ as the dictionary defines those words.

    I recently read something interesting from a commenter at a UK alternative website, who made a point I didn’t remember seeing before, so I saved it. In a way it points out the obvious, but didn’t George Orwell say that at a certain point, when we’ve sunk so low, restating the obvious becomes a duty (or words to that effect.) Excerpt:

    “….This irrationality is also revealed in the constantly reiterated assertion that the government is simply following the “science”. There is no way that science can determine policy. Science cannot tell you what your values should be; nor can it tell you what your priorities should be; nor can it tell you how to weigh competing demands and needs. If science could do these things, we would have a government of scientists. We don’t, and we don’t because policy-making is always about values, preference, choices: ie, policy-making is always and inevitably a political process. The claim that the policy is just a matter of science is an obvious, blatant falsehood. A falsehood that is designed to rhetorically hide a set of value judgements and to protect those value judgements from political, democratic accountability.”

  3. The tyranny of “science” as selected by politicians must end. Science as it is used today is a sledgehammer to dismantle our (representative) democracy and replace it with a select group of unelected so-called scientists who are conveniently extreme leftists.

  4. Aside from the advocacy of a completely useless and totally unnecessary vaccine, the article is great.

    1. Andrew, I am not advocating for a vaccine – just reporting that this study’s authors recommended one. – most physicians do. I do not take a flu vaccine, and likely would not take a coronavirus flu vaccine.
      Thanks for your comment. Katy

      1. How does a government recommend sick people stay home when covid has been shown to be infectious long before symptoms present?
        You make your living misleading people who don’t think very well, Ms Grimes. How vile.

        1. Actually there is no proof of that. They have now admitted that they failed to contact that transmitter directly until wks later whereupon she told them she was feeling sick and had symptoms when she arrived at the meeting. Those who reported it apologized but excused it as being in the heat of battle.

        2. @ Cat – Why don’t you ask Gov. hair-gel that question? He’s the one who shutdown California. So instead you attack Katy? She hasn’t misled anyone, but rather is simply exposing the lies ( aka what liberals push as the truth )

      2. I appreciate the good information in your article Katy! The study being 14 years old, I can see why vaccines would have been recommended at the time. Since then, we’ve seen the annual push for flu vaccines dramatically increase, yet hospitalizations due to flu symptoms continues to increase each year as well, bringing into question whether the vaccines are working, or might even be causing symptoms in some people. As we also learn of the toxic ingredients and lack of regulation/oversight for vaccines in general, I hope that we’ll be taking a closer look at whether they should be offered/recommended at all.
        The best defense against the virus or flu is a healthy immune system. Those with high risk factors seem to be the ones encouraging (shaming people about) the mask-wearing and continued lock-down. However, those same people will ALWAYS be at-risk for the next bug to come along. So how long should we quarantine ourselves for them? How many have risk factors that are lifestyle-related? We can reduce those factors by getting out in the sun, exercising, having access to nutritious food and getting the emotional boost of socializing with friends, family and our faith communities. Also, reducing the stress from financial concerns, as we are allowed to return to work and get back to LIVING! Healthy living is the BEST vaccine!

      3. They are called “flu shots” not flu vaccines because you can still get the flu if they guess wrong on which virus they must defend against. Evidently they must concoct a different flu shot each year whereas a vaccine inoculates you permanently. Love ya Katie and listen to you and Phil Cowan every Wednesday. Your efforts allow us to as my dear old dad used to say, “listen to both sides of the story” instead of being spoon fed Leftist views and fake news.

  5. Reporting on a 14 year old study does not give me the warm fuzzies. I’ll keep wearing my masks with filters and staying home. I really don’t see what the problem is with wearing masks and self quarantining to reduce transmission, especially when it works.

    1. Sara,
      The point is that this study, which is peer reviewed, is that this is not new information, and in fact, is what most epidemiologists and immunologists recommend as the proper handling of a coronavirus. If wearing a mask and staying home makes you feel better, then you may do that. But mass quarantining of healthy people is not only unhealthy, it is devastating to the economy.

    2. @ Sara – Let’s get this straight. You’re wearing a mask in public to prevent the spread? So you know you are carrying the virus but are willingly and very possibly infecting others by leaving your home? Why aren’t you self-quarantining until you test negative then?

      As far as wearing a mask, it’s guaranteed to work at concealing your identity such as when a person robs a bank or a 711. But as far as a person’s health unless it’s an actual respirator with filters I’m not sure it does a whole lot more than allow you the benefit of consuming your own C02 and bad breath. I could be wrong, but just in case I’ll leave you a link to a neurosurgeon who blew the lid off the mask BS and you can take that up with him :

      https://accountingweekly.com/face-masks-pose-serious-risks-to-the-healthy-blaylock/

    3. It was a peer-reviewed study, which means it was valid and reliable. Perhaps you can name other studies that counter that validity and reliability? As for wearing a mask, you take a bigger risk wearing one, so if you wish to accept that risk then please do so. Just know that it is you that you are hurting, you aren’t helping anyone.

  6. Poor reporting to separate the mask vs unmask and open vs close camps. Th report actually stated several reasons why we wear masks. It stated CDC guidelines in hospitals and the effectiveness for the patient not the worker, even mentioning that ill patients are given masks so they don’t emit further droplets in the air. Also, just as the headline states there is no base for quarantining because we don’t have much data on the subject. Katy, the 14 year old study is not relevant because the flu and the coronavirus are 2 separate viruses with different incubation periods, spread and death rates. Look at the epidemiology calculators and those are important to determine how fast this will spread. The authors relied on the flu vaccine to be the main option in reducing the spread of flu. Influenza kills enough people each year with a vaccine. Do people honestly believe that if we treated coronavirus like a normal flu season, assuming no one has a flu shot that we would have this low of infection and death rate by now? Coronavirus is not the flu because we do not have a vaccine for it. Until we do then comparisons are useless.

    1. @ Bob – Yeah Bob you’re right. COVID 19 is not influenza, but, and this is VERY important, it’s also NOT the walking death pandemic the liberals were trying to push in their pathetic attempt to sabotage President Trump and overthrown America. All you’re doing now is looking like a fool in attempting to keep the LIE alive.

  7. I feel there is a lack of understanding presented here. Corona viruses and influenza viruses are two different types of viruses. Most influenza viruses have fairly low mortality rate. The H1N1 influenza pandemic in 2009-2010 had a 0.02% mortality rate in the US (12,500 died out of about 60 million cases). COVID-19 has, based on number of cases and number of deaths as of May 18, has mortality rate of 6% (90,000 deaths out of 1.5 million cases) Completely different order of magnitude.
    Wearing a mask is NOT to protect you form being infected, but protecting others from being infected by you. This is necessary and simple precaution when dealing with a virus that is new, not well understood, infection methods not well known. The experience is that people can have it and transmit it while showing little or no symptoms. It’s known to spread when a person coughs or sneezes and likely that it spreads in close encounters. Studies have shown that wearing a mask considerably reduces the chances of spreading it.
    As someone who is in riskgroups, I certainly appreciate when people show responsibility toward other people’s health and wear a mask in public. I have no interest in getting this and really don’t see what the problem is!

    1. Arnor Baldvinsson,
      We are not conflating viruses, only noting that the coronavirus is still a flu virus. I have interviewed many immunologists and epidemiologists who have explained just that. I’m not sure where you are getting your numbers, but the CDC recently dramatically lowered its numbers, as most states were no longer reporting seasonal flu deaths, and all were being reported as COVID-19. The adjustment down showed 2,199 COVID deaths in California.
      https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm
      As for masks, the doctors I have interviewed say the Coronavirus does not have wings. Respiratory infections can be transmitted through droplets particles, not by being in a room and breathing the same air with people who may test positive for COVID-19. According to current evidence, COVID-19 virus is primarily transmitted between people through respiratory droplets – sneezes and coughs. Droplet transmission occurs when a person is in in close contact with someone who has respiratory symptoms and is coughing or sneezing. The respiratory droplets can then be transmitted through the mouth and nose, or eyes, if exposed to potentially infective respiratory droplets.
      This is why many medical experts say masks won’t prevent exposure to COVID-19 because to actually wear enough gear to prevent exposure, you’d need to wear goggles to protect your eyes as well as a mask that covers the nose and mouth. And it’s still a big maybe.

      Additionally, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington lowered COVID-19 coronavirus death projections for California substantially recently.

      Stanford University scientists just conducted a coronavirus antibody test, which tested 3,330 people, concluded that the infection is both more common than previously thought and possesses a lower fatality rate than what current data suggest.

      University of Southern California and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, also recently finished a study which found as many as 442,000 Los Angeles County residents may have already been infected with the coronavirus by early April, a number far higher than the 8,000 cases confirmed at the time. In the first large-scale study of adults tested for COVID-19 antibodies in their blood, initial results show researchers found that 4.1% have the antibodies, an indication that they have already been exposed to the virus. That translates to roughly 221,000 to 442,000 adults who have recovered from an infection, once margin of error is taken into account, according to the researchers conducting the study.

  8. This study is being interpreted out of context as it is about influenza infections not coronavirus, which is a different virus. You point out that the authors recommend large-scale community vaccination as mitigation against an (influenza) pandemic, a method not available against coronavirus COVID-19 because a vaccine is not yet available.

    In addition, pushing herd immunity of COVID-19 is not ideal as encouraging rapid onset of infection on this scale would overwhelm our healthcare system. Based on the statistics to date, 15% to 35% of Americans are at risk of severe illness requiring hospitalization. This is anywhere from 36,000,000 to 90,000,000 people. The U.S. hospital system is equipped to normally handle 35,000,000 hospitalizations of an average of 4.5 days per patient. This system doesn’t have the capability to ramp up to double the admissions in a short time. In addition, the average hospital stay for a COVID survivor is 10 to 12 days, further straining resources and personnel.

    As you quoted from the study “Strong political and public health leadership to provide reassurance and to ensure that needed medical care services are provided are critical elements. If either is seen to be less than optimal, a manageable epidemic could move toward catastrophe.”

    The critical elements above of strong political and public health leadership are “less than optimal”, amidst the COVID-19 pandemic and have lead to the current catastrophe of public health and economy. Without stringent testing, contact tracing, and methods to coordinate needed medical services to not overwhelm local healthcare facilities, we are stuck between the two extremes, continued lockdown or rapid reopening.

    1. It’s amazing how the editor can point to this article as reason not to quarantine when the first line says, “The authors recommend large scale community vaccination as a means of preventing influenza infection”. Despite knowing full well that there is no vaccine for covid19. Without a vaccine it invalidates the whole argument.

      Then in the comments she says if a vaccine wasn’t available, she wouldn’t use it.

      What’s the point in referencing a peer reviewed scientific study if you won’t follow the advice its giving.

      Also everyone who agrees with you is an idiot that lacks reading conprehension.

      1. A peer reviewed study is assessed and critiqued by scientists and experts in the same field. It functions as a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field.

        My decision to vaccinate or not is between my doctor and me – I have a strong immune system. And as with the flu vaccine, it’s not a cure-all. This years’ flu vaccine totally missed the mark.

      2. Well, the flu vaccine is never, no never 100% effective. This yr it was around 45%. A few yrs ago it was around 19% … and that is true of every vaccine. But don’t get hung up on that, or that covid isn’t the flu… this article was written with an epidemic in mind, not just the flu and if you read to the end it says covid is just like a bad flu… it’s a comparison. And like all infectious illness, the health of a person is the best predictor of outcome. 50% have been in nursing homes. Extremely few have died who did not have poor health.

      3. @ Kathy Mugsy – It’s amazing how you refer to ‘ quarantine ‘ and ‘ vaccination ‘ as if they are synonymous. They’re not.

        Also, you’re calling people idiots not because they agree with Katy, but rather because they do not agree with you. Nice try liberal. Oh and I agree with her, and I can read. You should learn to spell.

        You can now return to NAZI snitching on your neighbors …

      4. It’s amazing to me that you can call other people idiots when you write, yet you yourself don’t understand what the author wrote. The study showed that quarantines are actually counter productive, yet you say that because there is no vaccine we should quarantine? It sounds like you are being idiotic. Please notice (unlike you) I did not call you an idiot, just said you were being idiotic.

  9. Well, the flu vaccine is never, no never 100% effective. This yr it was around 45%. A few yrs ago it was around 19% … and that is true of every vaccine. But don’t get hung up on that, or that covid isn’t the flu… this article was written with an epidemic in mind, not just the flu and if you read to the end it says covid is just like a bad flu… it’s a comparison. And like all infectious illness, the health of a person is the best predictor of outcome. 50% have been in nursing homes. Extremely few have died who did not have poor health.

  10. Years ago my Kaiser Dr. recommended that I take the H1N1 vaccine. I did the same day at the clinic. Standing in line I received my shot. Mind you that I just finised my yearly physical and was in perfect health. As I left the clinic, I got in my vehicle l began to feel strange and by the time I got home I felt very sick. I stayed in bed for 10 days. I had developed a serious headache, chest congestion, chills, fever and cough. It took 45 days until I was able to feel well again. The Dr. said that I had an allergic reaction. That was the last vaccine I have ever taken or will ever take again. My immune system has always beaten the flu or viruses to this day. I am 73 yrs. old and very healthy.
    Thank you for posting

  11. It was a peer-reviewed study, which means it was valid and reliable. Perhaps you can name other studies that counter that validity and reliability? As for wearing a mask, you take a bigger risk wearing one, so if you wish to accept that risk then please do so. Just know that it is you that you are hurting, you aren’t helping anyone.

  12. The authors recommend large scale community vaccination as a means of preventing influenza infection. As important, they say the isolation of sick people in home and hospitals, the use of antiviral medications, and of course, hand-washing and respiratory etiquette.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *