Dear Rine C. Reuben,

The principle of "reverse isolation" - this means that the patient is isolated not because he is a threat to the environment himself, as a carrier of dangerous viruses and bacteria, but on the contrary - he has poor immunity and can easily catch germs from the outside. In such isolation, the Patient will stay until the therapeutic therapy applied begins to work and develop a new immune resistance. In my opinion, the principle of "reverse isolation" can be used to thoroughly examine the process of obtaining natural resistance by humans to the SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus (causing Covid-19 disease).

Best regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

Good point.

What do you mean by "inverse quarantine" exactly, I am not familiar with it, but maybe you have the answer that has not been considered before?

Inverse quarantine in some quarters means isolating or quarantining the most vulnerable population (the elderly, immunocompromised etc) or the infected individuals while others go about their normal routines without having much contact with those isolated or kept away from the larger population. This has been hyped and tipped to replace the total lockdown of the whole communities or countries in this present COVID-19 pandemic. Many scholars argue that inverse quarantine would be better in the pandemic than total lockdown

I think this approach (inverse quarantine) will be safe to adopt if the most vulnerable population that the disease attacks has been identified. In the case of COVID-19, the elderly and the immunocompromised/suppressed have been identified as the most vulnerable. We can try this approach with some caution.

Thanks Dr Aliyu for adding your voice to the science of the COVID-19 pandemic. Your contribution is highly appreciated.

Hi. I have to ask again, perhaps I am missing something. The background is that isolation and reverse isolation have been used for probably a century as part of medical treatment. Quarantine is a legal term to justify the medical isolation, if necessary. Reverse quarantine is not usually referred to because there is probably no law that requires that a person protect themselves. That is my understanding very basically. I am trying to figure out where the new term "inverse quarantine" fits in, and why a new term is needed. Please excuse my lack of comprehension, but I don't see anything new, for a new term here. Thank you, I await your reply.

Thanks Gary for your response. With the COVID-19 pandemic "inverse quarantine or isolation" has been repeatedly used by so many authors although no one has the monopoly of medical and epidemiological terms. With the evolving trends of events, emerging terms keep coming up as well.