[Link] Forty Days

GLaDOS

A post from Gregory Cochran's and Henry Harpending's excellent blog West Hunter.

One of the many interesting aspects of how the US dealt with the AIDS epidemic is what we didn’t do – in particular, quarantine. Probably you need a decent test before quarantine is practical, but we had ELISA by 1985 and a better Western Blot test by 1987.

There was popular support for a quarantine.

But the public health experts generally opined that such a quarantine would not work.

Of course, they were wrong. Cuba institute a rigorous quarantine. They mandated antiviral treatment for pregnant women and mandated C-sections for those that were HIV-positive. People positive for any venereal disease were tested for HIV as well. HIV-infected people must provide the names of all sexual partners for the past sic months.

Compulsory quarantining was relaxed in 1994, but all those testing positive have to go to a sanatorium for 8 weeks of thorough education on the disease. People who leave after 8 weeks and engage in unsafe sex undergo permanent quarantine.

Cuba did pretty well: the per-capita death toll was 35 times lower than in the US.

Cuba had some advantages: the epidemic hit them at least five years later than it did the US (first observed Cuban case in 1986, first noticed cases in the US in 1981). That meant they were readier when they encountered the virus. You’d think that because of the epidemic’s late start in Cuba, there would have been a shorter interval without the effective protease inhibitors (which arrived in 1995 in the US) – but they don’t seem to have arrived in Cuba until 2001, so the interval was about the same.

If we had adopted the same strategy as Cuba, it would not have been as effective, largely because of that time lag. However, it surely would have prevented at least half of the ~600,000 AIDS deaths in the US. Probably well over half.

I still see people stating that of course quarantine would not have worked: fairly often from dimwitted people with a Masters in Public Health.

My favorite comment was from a libertarian friend who said that although quarantine certainly would have worked, better to sacrifice a few hundred thousand than validate the idea that the Feds can sometimes tell you what to do with good effect.

The commenter Ron Pavellas adds:

I was working as the CEO of a large hospital in California during the 1980s (I have MPH as my degree, by the way). I was outraged when the Public Health officials decided to not treat the HI-Virus as an STD for the purposes of case-finding, as is routinely and effectively done with syphilis, gonorrhea, etc. In other words, they decided to NOT perform classic epidemiology, thus sullying the whole field of Public Health. It was not politically correct to potentially ‘out’ individuals engaging in the kind of behavior which spreads the disease. No one has recently been concerned with the potential ‘outing’ of those who contract other STDs, due in large part to the confidential methods used and maintained over many decades. (Remember the Wassermann Test that was required before you got married?) As is pointed out in this article, lives were needlessly lost and untold suffering needlessly ensued.

The Wasserman Test.

A post from Gregory Cochran's and Henry Harpending's excellent blog West Hunter.

One of the many interesting aspects of how the US dealt with the AIDS epidemic is what we didn’t do – in particular, quarantine. Probably you need a decent test before quarantine is practical, but we had ELISA by 1985 and a better Western Blot test by 1987.

There was popular support for a quarantine.

But the public health experts generally opined that such a quarantine would not work.

Of course, they were wrong. Cuba institute a rigorous quarantine. They mandated antiviral treatment for pregnant women and mandated C-sections for those that were HIV-positive. People positive for any venereal disease were tested for HIV as well. HIV-infected people must provide the names of all sexual partners for the past sic months.

Compulsory quarantining was relaxed in 1994, but all those testing positive have to go to a sanatorium for 8 weeks of thorough education on the disease. People who leave after 8 weeks and engage in unsafe sex undergo permanent quarantine.

Cuba did pretty well: the per-capita death toll was 35 times lower than in the US.

Cuba had some advantages: the epidemic hit them at least five years later than it did the US (first observed Cuban case in 1986, first noticed cases in the US in 1981). That meant they were readier when they encountered the virus. You’d think that because of the epidemic’s late start in Cuba, there would have been a shorter interval without the effective protease inhibitors (which arrived in 1995 in the US) – but they don’t seem to have arrived in Cuba until 2001, so the interval was about the same.

If we had adopted the same strategy as Cuba, it would not have been as effective, largely because of that time lag. However, it surely would have prevented at least half of the ~600,000 AIDS deaths in the US. Probably well over half.

I still see people stating that of course quarantine would not have worked: fairly often from dimwitted people with a Masters in Public Health.

My favorite comment was from a libertarian friend who said that although quarantine certainly would have worked, better to sacrifice a few hundred thousand than validate the idea that the Feds can sometimes tell you what to do with good effect.

The commenter Ron Pavellas adds:

I was working as the CEO of a large hospital in California during the 1980s (I have MPH as my degree, by the way). I was outraged when the Public Health officials decided to not treat the HI-Virus as an STD for the purposes of case-finding, as is routinely and effectively done with syphilis, gonorrhea, etc. In other words, they decided to NOT perform classic epidemiology, thus sullying the whole field of Public Health. It was not politically correct to potentially ‘out’ individuals engaging in the kind of behavior which spreads the disease. No one has recently been concerned with the potential ‘outing’ of those who contract other STDs, due in large part to the confidential methods used and maintained over many decades. (Remember the Wassermann Test that was required before you got married?) As is pointed out in this article, lives were needlessly lost and untold suffering needlessly ensued.

The Wasserman Test.

Actually considering the positions of both people is... inconsistent with a rights-based view of morality.

No. The point is that people's rights are a key part of their position, and it's impossible to evaluate people's interests or "expected value" without considering their rights. That's not to say that you can never override people's rights, but it needs to take a lot, particularly if the violation is very serious (eg mass imprisonment of people who've committed no crime). Moreover, if you need my consent for your plan, that's a great way of making sure that you really are acting in my interests. There is no end to my suspicion of people who view breaching rights without consent as a minor hiccup in their plan, rather than a key reason to abandon it.

Trying half measures and then doubling down

This is just rhetoric. An agile approach based on feedback and iteration is an equally good description. The failure of the "half-measure" should make you doubt the project a bit. It looks very much like you've got a hammer and are determined to wield it.

I don't see why you're not excited by the ability to adjust the risk of activities.

Hang on now. I think the pharmaceutical companies who came up with the various tests and anti-retrovirals etc did something worthwhile. I think the people who campaigned for condom use did something worthwhile. But I'm not excited about compulsory testing and mass imprisonment of the innocent. Once again, the question is: who should pay the costs of this risk adjustment? It looks to me very much like you want society as a whole (and HIV sufferers in particular) to subsidise your favourite recreational activity. You should pay.

If I expected a prohibition on alcohol to have positive expected value, I would support one.

Of course you would. And you'd place practically no weight on people's freedom to drink (or sell) what they want, and you'd place practically no weight on people's enjoyment of alcohol, but massive weight on the health drawbacks and drunk driving statistics and the occasional alcoholic. And then you'd add in the subconscious bias that you don't drink, so screw those guys (just as I do not believe for one second that you'd be in favour of a quarantine if it applied to you). Which is why people like you were gung-ho for prohibition, and shocked when it didn't work (they too didn't want to bother with voluntary attempts or partial measures). And why you are no doubt gung-ho for gun control. And why you will no doubt be gung-ho against every civil liberty in turn.

I consider this brand of politics far more dangerous than the HIV virus, but you'll note that I'm not calling for your quarantine.

[edit]Huge portions of this comment were missing originally; it's been edited but the context for descendent comments may have changed.

eg mass imprisonment of people who've committed no crime

I will point out that the current legal practice is to basically consider 'being suspected of having an infectious pandemic disease' as a 'crime,' in that the CDC can detain people at its discretion. If you subscribe to the 'non-agression principle,' I think this is consistent with that, since carrying an infectious disease is threatening or initiating violence (ev... (read more)

17

[Link] Forty Days

17

17

17

[Link] Forty Days

17

17