The longer the quarantine, the longer the epidemic will last.

By Alex Solnik, for the Journalists for Democracy 

Since there is scientific consensus that an epidemic only ends when it reaches its peak, which is when 70% of the city's population is infected, it follows that what determines its end is not the adherence to or duration of the quarantine, but the speed of the infection.

Historical example: the Spanish flu appeared in Rio de Janeiro in September 1918, peaked in October, declined in November, and by December was no longer being discussed; by then, 700 of the 900 inhabitants of Rio had been infected.

This pandemic, very similar to the current one – but without quarantine, masks, or hand sanitizer – lasted only three months in Rio de Janeiro because the contagion was also rapid. And it killed, although the numbers are not very reliable, somewhere between 15 and 25 people.

Quarantine protects against infection, obviously, but here's the thing: when the people who were confined go back out into the streets at the end of the quarantine, many of them will catch the virus.

In other words, quarantine solves the problem for hospitals, preventing overcrowding, and for patients, who receive treatment and escape death, but it does not solve the problem of the epidemic itself, it only postpones it.

This explains the much-feared "second wave" of COVID-19: it is made up of those who were in quarantine and have now left their homes, because as long as the contamination rate does not reach 70%, the virus remains active, with or without quarantine.

Conclusion: if the epidemic only ends when it infects 70% of the population, and quarantine prevents the spread of infection, then the longer the quarantine lasts, the longer the epidemic will last.