This is a study that won't get much publicity.

Quote:

---

The reputation of Marine basic training is that it is tough going but this really does take it to another level. All respect for those who volunteered for this! Also, this is an environment where those in charge do not mess around. There was surely close to 100% compliance, as compared with, for example, a typical college campus.

What were the results? Incredibly, 2% of the CHARM recruits still contracted the virus, even if all but one remained asymptomatic. "Our study showed that in a group of predominantly young male military recruits, approximately 2% became positive for SARS-CoV-2, as determined by qPCR assay, during a 2-week, strictly enforced quarantine."

And how does this compare to the control group that was not subjected to the strict regime?

Have a look at this chart from the study:

---

Quote:

---

The study is important because of the social structure of control here. It's one thing to observe no effects from national lockdowns. There are countless variables here that could be invoked as cautionary notes: demographics, population density, preexisting immunities, degree of compliance, and so on. But with this Marine study, you have a near homogeneous group based on age, health, and densities of living. And even here, you see confirmed what so many other studies have shown: lockdowns are pointlessly destructive. They do not manage the disease. They crush human liberty and produce astonishing costs, such as 5.53 million years of lost life from the closing of schools alone.

The lockdowners keep telling us to pay attention to the science. That's what we are doing. When the results contradict their pro-compulsion narrative, they pretend that the studies do not exist and barrel ahead with their scary plans to disable all social functioning in the presence of a virus. Lockdowns are not science. They never have been. They are an experiment in social/political top-down management that is without precedent in cost to life and liberty.

---

Lockdowns, like masks, have nothing to do with science/medicine regarding Covid.

This is interesting...

Quote:

---

They slept in double-occupancy rooms with sinks, ate in shared dining facilities, and used shared bathrooms.

---

They also wore masks except when eating sleeping.

The isolation group had some positive on day 1. The positives once identified were removed to isolation, but clearly there was some spread before an infected was identified as a positive.

This set up is certainly more strict than most/all lockdown policies that could be implemented in the civilian pop, but it doesn't demonstrate a complete isolation of everyone.

Ultimately, if you isolate a virus free group from the rest of the world, that group would likely remain virus free. But once there is an exposure and transmission into the isolated group, you will get spread. Individually, we may be able to lock our families in our homes, having everything delivered and do a reasonable job of staying virus free. But you can't implement a 100% isolation at anything much larger than that and there will necessarily be at least some degree of interaction resulting in spread.

Obviously, there was spread within the population before anyone implemented lockdowns. Local govts didn't implement lockdowns before case counts started climbing. The closest thing we have to an attempt to isolate our population from the infected was when trump banned travel from China early on. However, the data in Wash State showed that it was already here, so even that attempt, which was labeled racist and xenophobic at the time, was too little, too late.

It's astounding that they conducted this without testing the non-participants on Day 0 or Day 7.

Knowing those numbers could greatly strengthen or weaken the argument being made here.

Instead, this literally doesn't show anything about what happened during those 14 days because we only know what one of the two groups looked like on Day 0.

ETA: The more I think about it, the more I'd be willing to wager that the original study wasn't trying to make the claim that this article about the article is trying to make. There's no way you can make that claim without baseline numbers for both groups.

What's astounding is that the 2019 viral pandemic guidelines were tossed aside in favor of isolation/quarantine without any scientific rationale in 2020. There's no evidence lockdowns have actually limited viral spread.

nortex97 said:

---

What's astounding is that the 2019 viral pandemic guidelines were tossed aside in favor of isolation/quarantine without any scientific rationale in 2020. There's no evidence lockdowns have actually limited viral spread.

---

That may well prove to be true.

That doesn't change the fact that this study doesn't answer that question at all.