Indeed....you deny that escapes occur.
I assert they do and have stated that quarantines slow the spread but do not prevent it.
A one sided debate is no debate at all.
My argument that quarantines only slow progress. Spanish Influenza St Louis (1918). Imposed earlier than other cities and REDUCED the death rate to 70% below the national average. It did not PREVENT the spread.
Escape vectors are impossible to contain 100% unless with limited controlled subjects. Once it is in the wild it can no longer be contained - only slowed. Which is what I stated in my original post.
Seriously you can go to the Wikipedia page on Quarantine and there are examples dating back to the middle ages. I’m not entirely certain what you are arguing. Are you against quarantine in general? Which type of quarantine do you dispute the efficacy of? Individuals, groups, towns? Let us, for the moment, assume you are right and a large regional quarantine will have “leakage”. That leakage can be mopped up because there will be spare health care resources available to handle it. The moment it spreads beyond the ability to send additional manpower, the moment you’ve exceeded your supply of ventilators, medicines, staff, you’re SOL. So tell me what specifically you are opposing, and why, or if you’re simply being a contrarian, do say.
I would also like to add that while you say slowing the spread is “ineffective”, in fact, slowing is equivalent to lowering the basic reproduction number of the virus, which IS effective.
[A one sided debate is no debate at all.
My argument that quarantines only slow progress. Spanish Influenza St Louis (1918). Imposed earlier than other cities and REDUCED the death rate to 70% below the national average. It did not PREVENT the spread.]