Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

1.0K

(post is archived)

[–] • 2 pts

I feel like I'm missing something.

“I don’t even know that that was the best public health policy. Young people then quarantined with older people, [it] was probably not the best public health strategy,” he said. “The younger people could have been exposing the older people to an infection.”

If the younger people are quarantined with the older people, wouldn't that mean they live there? If they live there but are allowed to work, they would still be going home where the older people are after work. Am I missing something here? How would allowing them to work change anything? If anything that increases the chance the younger people would bring it into the home they share with their elders.

[–] • 1 pt

They sent college kids home where they could possibly infect older parents / grandparents.

[–] • 1 pt

Ah okay, questioning that makes sense.

[–] • 2 pts

The only way "quarantining" young people would have infected older people is if they sent all of the college students out of the University and back to their homes.

Quarantining college students ON CAMPUS would have been a wise decision since they are most likely to survive.

[–] • 1 pt

The only way "quarantining" young people would have infected older people is if they sent all of the college students out of the University and back to their homes.

That's exactly what NY, NJ, CT, FL, CA and a few other states did. Send the kids home!

Quarantining college students ON CAMPUS would have been a wise decision since they are most likely to survive.

My friend's daughter is staying at her off-campus apartment with her two roommates, rather than coming home and possibly infecting her parents and grandparents (who live with them).

[–] • 1 pt

He wonders... "what if..." Hmmmmm the backfiring...