A few people have mentioned the importance of keeping sick people at home - which I am not disputing by any means (and, as I mentioned in an earlier post, believe that more should be in place to counteract the prevailing 'if you can stand you can work' ethos and provide for workers who suffer from or are exposed to an infectious disease to ensure that they quarantine themselves and their families).

But it's worth reiterating and expanding on the point that quarantine is only ever going to have limited effectiveness, as many viruses are infectious long before becoming symptomatic; it is one of the reasons why viruses are such successful organisms. As international travel has increased the likelihood of widespread and rapid dissemination of viruses one of the greatest concerns amongst organisations like the WHO is ensuring rapid quarantine with the outbreak of a virulent and potentially deadly virus.

To put it in another perspective other than the human cost (which is significant enough in its own right), the economic and social effects of these outbreaks and the response to them is huge. The SARS epidemic is estimated to have cost between $30 and $40 billion (USD) in Asia alone, and given the relatively minor medical costs involved in its treatment by comparison to something like AIDs, most of this cost was in the implementation of quarantine and the result on major economies that were all but shut down for the duration. Admittedly, the mortality rate of SARS was significantly higher than, for example, measles or whooping cough, but it was also very well contained after the initial outbreak and the total number of cases was low by comparison to other viruses.

The reason that I specifically use SARS as an example because it was concerted quarantining efforts rather than a vaccine that successfully halted the spread of the virus - because a vaccine could not be developed. Whilst this does suggest that quarantine can be successful, purely from a macrosocial perspective, this is why vaccination programs are promoted so heavily, because it is far more feasible for world health authorities to try to prevent a disease than to manage its effects and prevent its spread once it has a toehold in the global community. Whilst managing viruses is by its nature reactive rather than proactive, it can be argued that the attempt to prevent a disease through vaccination, whilst not a failsafe, is a more proactive response than quarantine.

So finally getting to the point - quarantine and self management of infection control is something that can be managed effectively by an individual (and there are circumstances like those mentioned throughout the thread where the decision not to vaccinate is a necessary one), but it would not be a manageable strategy if applied to the entire global population. The tricky question is how big can the percentage of individuals get before the scales are tipped and the management of infectious disease becomes more reactive than preventative?

PS - (no smilies here - seeing that I've probably put y'all to sleep by now there's little chance of my words being interpreted as anything other than boring as batpoo ).

... Oh, and I asked previously if anyone knew of any clinical research on the effectiveness (success rate) of homeopathic vaccinations, as I have not been able to find any in my researches. Bumping this question as I'd be really grateful if anyone can point me in the right direction. Ta!