Given a paragraph and a claim, classify it this way: If the claim contradicts the evidence present in the paragraph, classify the claim as '0'. If the claim has multiple supporting *AND* contradicting evidences, classify the claim as '1'. If the claim has supporting evidence and the paragraph is in overall favor of the claim, then classify the claim as '2'.
--------
Question: Paragraph: We flagged false and misleading claims from several candidates:The second set of Democratic primary debates was hosted by CNN at Detroit’s Fox Theatre on July 30 with 10 candidates. Another 10 will take the stage on July 31.O’Rourke falsely claimed that “no other country” has as many firearm-related deaths as the U.S.O’Rourke: How else can we explain that we lose nearly 40,000 people in this country to gun violence, a number that no other country comes even close to.O’Rourke didn’t specify a time period, but 39,773 people died from firearm-related injuries in the U.S. in 2017, according to the most recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data. Of those deaths, 60% were suicides and 36.6% were homicides.But it’s not true that no other country comes close to the U.S., as O’Rourke said.In 2016, there were an estimated 43,200 firearm injury deaths in Brazil, according to a 2018 study published in JAMA. That was more than the estimated 37,200 firearm deaths that year in the U.S. Mexico, with an estimated 15,400 deaths by firearms, was the next closest country.The U.S., with 10.6 deaths per 100,000 people, also did not have the highest firearm injury death rate. More than a dozen countries had a higher rate than the U.S., including Brazil (19.4), Honduras (22.5), Guatemala (32.3) and Venezuela (38.7). El Salvador’s rate of 39.2 deaths per 100,000 people was the highest.O’Rourke also claimed that the CDC is “prevented from actually studying the issue [of gun violence] in the first place.” Under what’s known as the Dickey Amendment, no CDC funds “for injury prevention and control … may be used, in whole or in part, to advocate or promote gun control.” However, compromise language accompanying a 2018 spending bill clarified that, while that prohibition remains, “the Secretary of Health and Human Services has stated the CDC has the authority to conduct research on the causes of gun violence.”Update, July 31: A spokesman for O’Rourke’s campaign told us the former congressman meant that “no other developed country comes close to the number of gun deaths” in the U.S. That claim is accurate, but it’s not what he said in the debate. The candidates engaged in some misleading claims about the effects of the 2017 Republican tax cut.“Left everyone behind?” — Klobuchar referred to the bill as “that regressive tax bill that left everyone behind, but really made his Mar-a-Lago friends richer.” The bill did benefit wealthy people like those able to afford the $200,000 membership fee to join Trump’s Palm Beach resort. A 2017 analysis by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimated that in 2018 the average tax cut for those in the top one-tenth of 1% in income would amount to $193,380.But the bill certainly didn’t “leave everyone behind.” The TPC analysis estimated that the middle 20% in income would get an average cut of $930 in 2018.Klobuchar would have been correct to say that the bill favored the rich more than others. The TPC analysis estimated that the middle 20% would see their after-tax income go up 1.6%, less than half the 3.4% increase in after-tax income for the top 1%.“83 cents”? — Williamson dusted off a shopworn and misleading Democratic talking point that we’ve debunked before. She said, “We had a $2 trillion tax cut, where 83 cents of every dollar goes to the very, very richest among us.” That’s misleading.She’s referring to the TPC’s analysis of the effect of the Trump tax bill in 2027 — which is after most of the individual income tax changes would expire, should Congress not extend them. In 2025, when all of the bill’s provisions would still be in effect, the top 1% would get just over 25 cents of every dollar of the cuts.In explaining how he would run against Trump in the general election, Hickenlooper accused the president of “malpractice” and ticked off several examples — including manufacturing job growth.“Where’s the small manufacturing jobs that are supposed to come back?” he asked.It’s true that there are still 892,000 fewer manufacturing jobs, as of June, than there were in December 2007, when the Great Recession started. However, manufacturing jobs have increased under Trump.The economy has added 486,000 manufacturing jobs between Trump’s inauguration and June, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. As we wrote in the most recent installment of “Trump’s Numbers,” that amounts to 3.9% growth — the same rate as total employment has grown during that time.In discussing climate change, two candidates referred to decade-long deadlines to take action on the issue.Buttigieg broached the subject in his opening statement, saying, “Science tells us we have 12 years before we reach the horizon of catastrophe when it comes to our climate.”O’Rourke also referenced a similar time period. “I’ve listened to the scientists on this, and they’re very clear,” he said. “We don’t have more than 10 years to get this right.”In his closing statement, Buttigieg returned to the idea, adding, “By 2030 we will have passed the point of no return on climate.”As we explained in our coverage of the last Democratic debate, the time frames both politicians reference are pulled from a special report issued by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2018.The IPCC report concluded that to avoid many of the more severe impacts of climate change, global warming would have to be limited to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels — or about half a degree more than current warming. To reach that goal, the report said carbon dioxide emissions around the world would need to fall 45% below 2010 levels by 2030, and be net-zero by 2050.With just 12 years between 2018 and 2030, the report’s message was misinterpreted by many to mean that just over a decade remained to take action on climate change, or before an ecological catastrophe.“The problem with that framing from a scientific perspective is that climate change is not pass/fail,” Benjamin Cook, a climate scientist at NASA explained in a phone interview. “The 1.5 and 2 degree thresholds aren’t magical tipping points,” he said, where “we’re okay before then and it’s a disaster afterwards.”The consequences will be worse if we wait, he said, but even if the world surpasses 2 degrees of warming, any action we take to prevent further warming would still have value.It’s a point that other scientists have made as well. “Please stop saying something globally bad is going to happen in 2030,” wrote Myles Allen, an author of the IPCC report and the leader of the ECI Climate Research Programme at the University of Oxford, in a Conversation article. “Bad stuff is already happening and every half a degree of warming matters, but the IPCC does not draw a ‘planetary boundary’ at 1.5°C beyond which lie climate dragons.”Sonali McDermid, a climate scientist at New York University, noted in an email that the longer we wait to take action, the harder it will be to make progress on climate change, which after the 1.5 degree target, could lead to or exacerbate loss of key ecosystems, increases in extremes, changes in seasonality that affect food production and infrastructure, and higher sea level rise. “But that doesn’t – and shouldn’t – imply or mean that we just give up after 12 years,” she wrote.So while the candidates are correct to say that scientists have warned about the effects of climate change — and advocate for sooner, rather than later movement on the issue — it’s not the case that 2030 is a “point of no return” or that there is a particular deadline for taking action.Ryan said of farmers, “They haven’t made a profit in five years.” That’s far from being true.The Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture recently projected that net farm income would rise 10% this year, to $69.4 billion. And that broad measure of farm profits hasn’t been below $60 billion since 2006.It’s true that net farm income peaked at $123 billion in 2013 — a period of high commodity prices. Ryan would have been on firmer ground had he said farmers haven’t seen a big profit increase in five years.Sanders twice said that there were “87 million uninsured or underinsured,” saying this was the case “tonight in America, as we speak.” A Commonwealth Fund study supports that figure, though it includes those who were insured at the time they were surveyed but had had a gap in coverage in the prior year.“Of the 194 million U.S. adults ages 19 to 64 in 2018, an estimated 87 million, or 45 percent, were inadequately insured,” the study found, directing readers to Tables 1 and 2. The 87 million figure includes: 24 million uninsured in 2018, 43.8 million who were “underinsured” and 19.3 million who were insured at the time of the survey but had a gap in coverage in the previous year. The underinsured measure looks at out-of-pocket costs, not including insurance premiums, and the plan deductible. It includes people whose out-of-pocket costs were 10 percent or more of household income over 12 months, or 5 percent or more of household income for those earning under 200% of the federal poverty level; it also includes those whose deductibles were 5 percent or more of household income.The study found that fewer adults were uninsured in 2018, compared with 2010, but more people were underinsured.Warren defended her plan to fund child care and education by taxing “the top one-tenth of 1% of fortunes in this country.”By collecting a 2% tax on net worth over $50 million and a 3% tax on net worth over $1 billion, Warren promises to provide universal child care for kids up to age 5 and universal pre-K, raise the wages of child care and preschool teachers, offer free tuition at community and technical colleges, dedicate $50 billion to historically black colleges and universities, and cancel student debt for 95 percent of those who have it.Delivering on that promise depends on her tax plan generating $2.75 trillion over 10 years. But some economists are skeptical that it will actually raise that much. We wrote about it here.An op-ed from Lawrence Summers, a former treasury secretary and an economic adviser to former President Barack Obama, and Natasha Sarin, a law and business professor, suggested that Warren’s plan would raise about 40% of the projection.The Warren campaign hit back on the criticisms raised in that piece, arguing that the tax plan wouldn’t be weakened by loopholes and would include funds to bolster IRS enforcement. But it’s far from settled as to whether or not Warren’s plan will be able to pay for everything it has promised.When asked about the economic impact of policy proposals that would reduce public reliance on fossil fuels, O’Rourke said “wind and solar jobs are the fastest-growing jobs in the country.” We covered this issue once before — when Washington Gov. Jay Inslee made a similar statement — and found no federal data that could support such a claim.The BLS, the country’s official custodian of employment data, discontinued collecting data on all so-called “green jobs” in 2013. However, the agency does measure the number of jobs for some individual green occupations on an annual basis and projects job growth for these occupations.In 2017, BLS projected that solar photovoltaic installers and wind turbine technicians will be the two fastest-growing occupations by 2026. But that’s future growth, not current growth, and it is on a percentage basis. The actual number of additional jobs projected by 2026 is quite small.By 2026, BLS projects there will be 11,800 additional solar installers and 5,600 new wind turbine service technicians. That would be a 105 percent increase in solar photovoltaic installers and a 96 percent increase in wind turbine technicians from 2016 levels. By contrast, the third fastest-growing occupation — home health aides — will add 431,200 jobs, an increase of 47 percent.Home health aides also appears on the agency’s “most new jobs” projections, but the solar and wind jobs do not.We also found that, as of May 2018, there were an estimated 8,950 solar installers and 5,580 wind turbine service technicians. But a BLS spokesman told us that those figures represent a moving three-year average, so those figures should not be compared with those from previous years.The BLS data limitations make it impossible to measure the growth in “green jobs” in a way that is comparable with other occupations tracked by the agency. Two candidates misrepresented the Green New Deal during the debate, inaccurately stating that the nonbinding resolution offers Americans a guarantee of a government job.When asked why he felt the Green New Deal was unrealistic, Delaney responded, “Well, first of all, because it ties its progress to other things that are completely unrelated to climate, like universal health care, guaranteed government jobs, and universal basic income. So that only makes it harder to do.”Hickenlooper made the same claim in the last debate, and repeated it again twice in this debate.The Green New Deal, he said, would “make sure that every American is guaranteed a government job that they want.” Later, when Hickenlooper was also asked why he is opposed to the Green New Deal, he replied, “Well, I think the guarantee for a public job for everyone who wants one is a classic part of the problem. It’s a distraction.”As we explained after the June debate, the Green New Deal guarantees “a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States.” The legislation, which failed to advance in the Senate in March, does not require the job be a public sector position. The Global Burden of Disease 2016 Injury Collaborators. “Global Mortality From Firearms, 1990-2016.” JAMA. 28 Aug 2018.Santhanam, Laura. “There’s a new global ranking of gun deaths. Here’s where the U.S. stands.” PBS NewsHour. 28 Aug 2018.Kochanek K.D., et al. “Deaths: Final data for 2017.” National Vital Statistics Reports; vol 68 no 9. National Center for Health Statistics. 24 Jun 2019.Collins, Sara R. et. al. “Health Insurance Coverage Eight Years After the ACA.” The Commonwealth Fund. 7 Feb 2019.Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. “Distributional Analysis of the Conference Agreement for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” 18 Dec 2017.Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. “Highlights From the March 2019 Farm Income Forecast: Farm Sector Profits Expected To Increase in 2019.” 7 Mar 2019.Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. “Value added to the U.S. economy by the agricultural sector, 2000-2009 Nominal (current dollars).” Data accessed 31 Jul 2019.Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. “Value added to the U.S. economy by the agricultural sector, 2010-2019F Nominal (current dollars).” Data accessed 31 Jul 2019.McDonald, Jessica. “The Facts on the ‘Green New Deal.’” FactCheck.org. 15 Feb 2019.Allen, Myles. “Why protesters should be wary of ‘12 years to climate breakdown’ rhetoric.” The Conversation. 18 Apr 2019.IPCC, 2018: Summary for Policymakers. Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.Cook, Benjamin. Climate scientist, NASA. Interview with FactCheck.org. 26 Jul 2019.McDermid, Sonali. Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies, New York University. Emails sent to FactCheck.org. 28 and 30 Jul 2019.Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey; All employees, thousands, manufacturing, seasonally adjusted.” Accessed 31 Jul 2019.Jackson, Brooks. “Trump’s Numbers July 2019 Update.” FactCheck.org. 12 Jul 2019.Kiely, Eugene. “Jay Inslee’s Green Jobs Claim.” FactCheck.org. 16 Apr 2019.Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Thirty fastest growing occupations projected to account for 19 percent of new jobs from 2016 to 2026.” Press release. 30 Oct 2017.Torpey, Elka. “Green growth: Employment projections in environmentally focused occupations.” Bureau of Labor Statistics. Apr 2018.Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Most New Jobs.” Updated 12 Apr 2019. Accessed 31 Jul 2019.Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2018. 47-2231 Solar Photovoltaic Installers.” Accessed 31 Jul 2019.Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2018. 49-9081 Wind Turbine Service Technicians.” Accessed 31 Jul 2019. Claim: "No other country comes even close to"" the ""nearly 40,000 people in this country"" lost to gun violence."

Answer: 0


Question: Paragraph: "U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith told Fox News on May 20 that the United States needs Mexico's help in stopping their citizens from entering the United States illegally but that ""we get just the opposite. """"They hand out brochures showing individuals how they can avoid our Border Patrol, how they can get into our country,"" Smith said May 20, referring to the Mexican government. His statement came to our attention from Lainey Melnick of Austin, the Democratic nominee challenging Smith in November.Smith backed off his statement slightly when the Fox News interviewer, Bill Hemmer, asked: ""You are saying that the Mexican government is passing out leaflets on how to cross the border?"" Smith's reply: ""They have done that in the past, on how to, of course how to be safe, and maybe how to get food and water, but also how to avoid detection. ""Has Mexico really been giving its citizens advice on how to sneak into the United States without running into the Border Patrol? We looked into it.In response to our inquiry, Jamie Zuieback, who works for Smith as an aide to the House Judiciary Committee, pointed us to an opinion piece that aired on National Public Radio on Jan. 27, 2005. In it, commentator Gustavo Arellano reacts to a pamphlet produced by the Mexican foreign ministry called ""Guia del Migrante Mexicano,"" or ""Guide for the Mexican Migrant."" Earlier that month, The New York Times reported that about 1.5 million copies of the guide had been distributed across Mexico in December 2004.In his commentary, Arellano said the 32-page booklet ""advises Mexicans who are thinking of leaving their homeland on the best ways to do it."" Arrellano noted that the publication riled some American lawmakers, who described it as a manual on how to enter the country illegally -- a position aired at the time by then-U.S. Rep. J.D. Hayworth, R-Ariz., in an opinion article published in the Jan. 9, 2005, Austin American-Statesman. (Hayworth is challenging U.S. Sen. John McCain in Arizona's 2010 Republican primary. )Several weeks later, Francisco Alejo, who was then the Austin-based Mexican consul general, responded to Hayworth with an opinion piece in the Statesman. He wrote: ""In no way does the guide promote undocumented immigration into the United States. As it is clearly stated in the guide’s introduction and on the back cover, the safe and appropriate way to enter any country -- including the United States -- is with a valid passport and visa. ""Alejo said the guide was produced to advise ""people of the risks involved in, as well as the legal consequences of, crossing into the United States."" His article also said the Mexican government had produced similar guides in the past. Marc Rosenblum, senior policy analyst at the Washington-based Migration Policy Institute, a think tank that studies international migration, said his reading was that the purpose of the brochure was humanitarian, to prevent migrants from being stranded in the desert or dying.In the January 2005 Times article, Geronimo Gutierrez, then Mexico’s undersecretary for North American affairs, said that the year before, ""over 300 Mexicans died in their attempt to enter the United States, the vast majority if not all of them in search of a job. ... The Mexican government obviously has an obligation to take all actions possible in order to avoid the loss of life.’’ Let's recap. Smith first said that the Mexican government is currently handing out leaflets telling people how to avoid the U.S. Border Patrol and ""get into the country."" He amended that to say that Mexico has handed out such leaflets in the past and that they included information on how to ""be safe."" And the Mexican government acknowledged a few years ago that it was distributing information about safely crossing the border.That leaves two significant questions. Are the leaflets still being distributed? And do they -- or did they ever -- advise border-crossers how to get into the country while avoiding detection?Seeking answers, we tried to find a current copy of the handout, which is no longer available on the Mexican government's website. However, we resurrected the pamphlet using an Internet archiving tool. We then matched the Spanish text of the document with an English translation of excerpts published in the Times in 2005, supplemented with translation by Spanish-speaking colleagues at the American-Statesman.The introduction to the brochure we found -- it's undated -- says it was designed to dispense ""practical advice"" and notes that the safe way to enter another country is to do so legally, by acquiring a passport in Mexico and a visa from the destination country. It is illustrated with comics-like drawings.It warns migrants of the perils of crossing over. For instance, they are told that crossing the river -- unnamed in the brochure, but presumably the Rio Grande -- can be perilous and that wet, heavy clothing makes floating or swimming difficult. For desert crossers, this section advises migrants ""to walk during hours when the heat is not too intense. ""It also describes the dangers of getting involved with human smugglers and advises migrants not to use false documents or carry packages for someone else. If detained, they are told not to resist arrest or try to escape, and that they have certain rights while in custody. And there are tips for migrants to keep a low profile once they are settled in the U.S.: Avoid noisy parties, fighting, domestic violence, carrying weapons, illegal activities, driving while drinking or driving without a license or insurance.There is no information on where to cross the border or how to avoid the Border Patrol or U.S. authorities when doing so.When we noted the lack of such specific advice, Zuieback, Smith's committee aide, pointed out illustrations that she said show ""illegal immigrants watching the border for an opening to enter and, later, running from the Border Patrol."" She also said the advice to cross the desert when the heat is less severe is ""a clear message to cross at night. ""Zuieback also interpreted the tips on keeping a low profile as information on ""how to avoid detection by law enforcement while in the United States. ""As for showing migrants how to ""get into our country"" -- per Smith's statement to Fox News -- the closest such reference we spotted was a sentence urging people to ""use power lines, train tracks or dirt roads as guides"" if they get lost.Next, we tried to find out whether the migrant guide was still being distributed. Zuieback said Smith was not aware of ""additional publications"" since the guide prompted a flurry of news articles in 2005. However, we came across 2005 reports of similar publications by at least one Mexican state, Yucatan.Using Google Scholar, we found an academic article on the ""Guide for the Mexican Migrant"" published in 2009 by Bruno Lutz, a professor at the Metropolitan Autonomous University in Xochimilco, on the outskirts of Mexico City. Lutz wrote that the brochure was published and distributed from 2004 to 2006; that was confirmed by Ricardo Alday, a spokesman for the Mexican Embassy in Washington. When President Felipe Calderon came to power in 2006, the paper says, the guide was substituted on the government's website with a guide for the ""Mexican traveler,"" which Lutz describes as ""limited to giving very general indications about required visas and tourist attractions in each country. ""We then read the ""Guia del Viajero Mexicano"" on the website of Mexico's foreign ministry and found information on travel alerts, consular services and visa requirements, but nothing on illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border.So where does that leave us? Smith was right when he told Fox News that the Mexican government handed out brochures offering advice to people planning to immigrate to the United States without authorization. And there is an element of truth in Smith’s statement that the information in the pamphlet shows people, as Smith says, ""how they can get into our country,"" but the part of the publication that deals with crossing the border focuses on safety.Significantly, Smith incorrectly declared, initially, that Mexico currently gives out the guide. We found no evidence to support that statement.Also, the congressman's description of the ""Guia del Migrante Mexicano"" -- that it tells how to avoid the Border Patrol -- was misleading. While two illustrations appear to show migrants in flight from law officers, the text does not contain information on how to avoid law enforcement while crossing over. In fact, it advises cooperation if apprehended." Claim: "Mexican government officials ""hand out brochures showing individuals how they can avoid our Border Patrol, how they can get into our country."

Answer: 0


Question: Paragraph: On April 28 2020, amid ongoing coverage of astroturfed anti-lockdown protests, a Facebook post claimed that quarantine was intended to “restrict the movement of sick people” (archived here):White text against a red and blue background read:QUARANTINE IS WHEN YOU RESTRICT THE MOVEMENT OF SICK PEOPLETYRANNY IS WHEN YOU RESTRICT THE MOVEMENT OF HEALTHY PEOPLEA single word was added to the post, “Hmmm,” implying that its content was something to ponder in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. In fact, this meme simply plays to larger public ignorance about both the meaning and purpose of a “quarantine,” as well as broad lack of understanding regarding the aim of social distancing measures.Quarantine DefinitionHere are some definitions of the word “quarantine” from various sources:Cambridge:a period of time during which an animal or person that might have a disease is kept away from other people or animals so that the disease cannot spread[. ]Merriam-Webster (a bit more expansive):1: a period of 40 days 2a: a term during which a ship arriving in port and suspected of carrying contagious disease is held in isolation from the shore b: a regulation placing a ship in quarantine c: a place where a ship is detained during quarantine 3a: a restraint upon the activities or communication of persons or the transport of goods designed to prevent the spread of disease or pestsMacmillan Dictionary:a situation in which a person or animal that might have a disease is kept separate from other people or animals so that they do not catch the disease in quarantine: Animals can be kept in quarantine for up to three months.Dictionary.com:noun a strict isolation imposed to prevent the spread of disease. a period, originally 40 days, of detention or isolation imposed upon ships, persons, animals, or plants on arrival at a port or place, when suspected of carrying some infectious or contagious disease. a system of measures maintained by governmental authority at ports, frontiers, etc., for preventing the spread of disease. the branch of the governmental service concerned with such measures.verb (used with object), quar·an·tined, quar·an·tin·ing. to put in or subject to quarantine. to exclude, detain, or isolate for political, social, or hygienic reasons.You could also just Google it, and find this at the very top of the page:a state, period, or place of isolation in which people or animals that have arrived from elsewhere or been exposed to infectious or contagious disease are placed.Universally, “quarantine” is described as a condition placed upon people (or animals) who do or may have disease; a common trait in definitions for specific reasons.Quarantines in Recent HistoryHistorical quarantine signs from past epidemics are available for perusal through various web outlets, such as one from the 1918-1919 Spanish Flu pandemic:As we explained in a separate April 2020 fact check, an influenza pandemic in 1918 and 1919 killed millions of people and spread in a deadlier second wave in late 1918:Did the Second Wave of the 1918 Spanish Flu Kill 20 to 30 Million, While the First Wave Killed 3 to 5 Million?Although the sign embedded above is not easy to read, it’s clear that “movie houses,” “churches,” and “chapels” were among places closed to the ill and healthy alike during that pandemic.The Larger History of QuarantineQuarantine as we know it likely dated back to the Black Plague in the Middle Ages. According to the Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention (CDC), the word’s etymological roots come from the Italian phrase for “forty days”:The practice of quarantine, as we know it, began during the 14th century in an effort to protect coastal cities from plague epidemics. Ships arriving in Venice from infected ports were required to sit at anchor for 40 days before landing. This practice, called quarantine, was derived from the Italian words quaranta giorni which mean 40 days. […]State and local governments made sporadic attempts to impose quarantine requirements. Continued outbreaks of yellow fever finally prompted Congress to pass federal quarantine legislation in 1878. This legislation, while not conflicting with states’ rights, paved the way for federal involvement in quarantine activities.As the CDC explained, the 1948 Public Health Service Act (PHSA) influenced modern pandemic management. That legislation “gave the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) responsibility for preventing the introduction, transmission, and spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the United States.”Once again, the goal of quarantine was to prevent transmission — not only from the sick, but also from those who had not yet fallen ill from those who were asymptomatic. Further, preventing “the spread of communicable disease” also involved the movements of healthy people who might contract the disease and themselves become vectors.On a separate page in its series of quarantine-related resources for public education (“Legal Authorities for Isolation and Quarantine”), the CDC outlined the purposes of “quarantine” and “isolation”:Isolation and quarantine help protect the public by preventing exposure to people who have or may have a contagious disease.• Isolation separates sick people with a quarantinable communicable disease from people who are not sick. • Quarantine separates and restricts the movement of people who were exposed to a contagious disease to see if they become sick.To reiterate, “isolation” referred to known infected and ill people, and separating them from the general public. “Quarantine” specifically referred to the “movement of people … exposed to a contagious disease” to see if they fall ill. Quarantine when contrasted with isolation was, again, for people who had not yet become sick, to prevent the spread of sickness by people infected but not ill.The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) provided a nearly identical resource defining “quarantine” and “isolation” for the purposes of public health, adding:• Isolation separates sick people with a contagious disease from people who are not sick. • Quarantine separates and restricts the movement of people who were exposed to a contagious disease to see if they become sick. These people may have been exposed to a disease and do not know it, or they may have the disease but do not show symptoms.As of April 27 2020, that descriptor could easily be applied to Americans under “stay at home” or “shelter in place” orders. Those people “may have been exposed” and “not know it,” or they “may have the disease” and not show symptoms.Asymptomatic Novel Coronavirus Carriers and the Necessity of QuarantineAs of April 3 2020, reports indicated a full 25 percent of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) were fully asymptomatic — a big deal number. And those people likely never become ill to begin with:According to Robert Redfield, the director of the [CDC], 25 percent of people infected with the new coronavirus don’t present any symptoms or fall ill but can still transmit the illness to others.And you may have heard the term “novel coronavirus,” which alludes to the fact this strain of coronavirus is completely new (which has led to its own genre of disinformation and misinformation); researchers are constantly learning new and important things about how it infects and spreads. That is why less than a month later on April 24 2020, the estimate of asymptomatic carriers rose to as many as fifty percent.If we view that information through the lens of the history of quarantine, it’s important to bear in mind it started due to an inability to test for or treat carriers of previous illnesses during pandemics or epidemics.It is also true that some protested against those historical measures, too — either a result of not understanding or refusing to understand why quarantine was important:In some countries, the suspension of personal liberty provided the opportunity—using special laws—to stop political opposition. However, the cultural and social context differed from that in previous centuries. For example, the increasing use of quarantine and isolation conflicted with the affirmation of citizens’ rights and growing sentiments of personal freedom fostered by the French Revolution of 1789. In England, liberal reformers contested both quarantine and compulsory vaccination against smallpox. Social and political tensions created an explosive mixture, culminating in popular rebellions and uprisings, a phenomenon that affected numerous European countries. In the Italian states, in which revolutionary groups had taken the cause of unification and republicanism, cholera epidemics provided a justification (i.e., the enforcement of sanitary measures) for increasing police power.A lack of testing and ability to treat the ill were a driving force behind prior quarantine orders.Only One Percent of Americans Have Been Tested for Novel CoronavirusAlthough statistics changed daily, as of April 22 2020, only one percent of Americans had been tested for the virus which caused COVID-19:At least 4,163,464 people in the U.S. have been tested, as of [April 22 2020]. This amounts to around 1.2 percent of the country’s population of nearly 332,639,000.The Math on ThatWe are not mathematicians. But we don’t need to be to point out that if just over one percent of Americans had been tested for novel coronavirus as of late April 2020, and 25 to 50 percent of the infected would never be sickened, the need to quarantine or restrict the movement of the possibly infected perhaps becomes apparent.TL;DRA Facebook meme asserted “QUARANTINE IS WHEN YOU RESTRICT THE MOVEMENT OF SICK PEOPLE, TYRANNY IS WHEN YOU RESTRICT THE MOVEMENT OF HEALTHY PEOPLE,” and it demonstrated lack of knowledge about the pandemic on myriad levels.Historically and through 2020, quarantine was never designed to apply to “sick people”; the word for that is isolation. Quarantine, by contrast, was for people who might have been exposed to an infectious disease, for the duration of the time that they might pass the disease on to others. Finally, 25 to 50 percent of coronavirus carriers never get sick, and just over one percent of Americans had been tested as of April 2020. The meme was not only ignorant, but dangerously so — in fact, it ought to be quarantined until it can no longer do harm.Comments Claim: Quarantine is when you restrict the movement of sick people.

Answer:
0