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.
My original statement: “Unfortunately historically, quarantines have never worked. At best they slow down the progression allowing time for resources to be brought to bare, but they have never proven successful in eliminating the spread.”
Which was in response to this from TheTimeofMan: “Quarantine is what works.
Governments can either greatly inconvenience an extremely small number - or take a small risk that millions will die.
Everyone coming from China should have gone into forced (locked in) quarantine from day one.
One of these years one of these viruses is going to kill 20% of the planet.”
I never said don’t do quarantines. My point was that they only slow the spread they do not eliminate it.