|
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 31969380)
The reason that few are quarantined is because it’s not good policy to quarantine people for no good reason. Level of cooperation by itself is neither a good reason or bad reason for someone to be under quarantine or not, but it’s a factor for consideration when it comes to people who should be under quarantine for health reasons.
I am not saying that, and I wouldn’t say that. That would border on giving even more of a carte blanche to CBP, CDC and other government actors than already given. I think that proportionality and other nuances are relevant to whether or not I would say a public health safety measure is appropriate or not in that way or other ways. I don’t find the government sticking a temp measuring device against a forehead or ear to be the same thing as banishing a person to an underground cell in a remote Alaskan holding camp for 24/7 monitoring and invasive testing just because the arriving person had a pimple on the cheek. Quarantine is only appropriate when there is both a risk and no reasonable way to manage that risk short of quarantine. If one doesn't believe that someone running a 109 fever will call in to say there's a problem, that's someone who poses a public health danger. |
Originally Posted by Often1
(Post 31969492)
People who refuse to cooperate are exactly the people who need to be quarantined. Normal people are advised of the symptoms to watch for, asked for contact information, and given contact information at CDC in case they do become symptomatic and are on their way.
Quarantine is only appropriate when there is both a risk and no reasonable way to manage that risk short of quarantine. If one doesn't believe that someone running a 109 fever will call in to say there's a problem, that's someone who poses a public health danger. |
Originally Posted by looker001
(Post 31970236)
So because people decide to exercise their legal right, they should be quarantined? Just because i refuse to agree to provide government with information can't be deemed that i pose public health danger. That would mean when i refuse to answer us custom question i should be arrested because i could be terrorist. An Americans we have certain rights, one of them not being harassed/monitored by the government.
There's a line at which your rights and other people rights border. |
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 31970669)
There's a line at which your rights and other people rights border.
The ability of claims about public safety to be used by government to control or otherwise coerce an individual traveler and intrude Into the life of such seemingly healthy individual should not be unlimited even at borders. |
Originally Posted by looker001
(Post 31967281)
to keep this legal and not political, from my understanding in order to be detained an officer needs to have R. A. S. In this case they would need to have RAS that I am threat to general public. It's hard for them to provide that just because I decided to exercise my 4th and 5th amendment right. I have before refused to answer custom questions and even use kiosk /fill out declaration form. I would argue legally this is no different. One is not required to help government with their investigation
CDC have an absolute power under law to inspect individuals arriving at a US PoE. You *do not* have a 5th Amendment case because you're not being accused of a criminal offence - illness is not crime, even in the US. You *do not* have a 4th Amendment right to deny their inspection, and given their inspection is non-invasive and ~30 seconds in length (assuming they don't find any evidence of infection during said inspection) you won't find a court in the country that would side with your legally dubious and morally incomprehensible position. |
Originally Posted by looker001
(Post 31970236)
So because people decide to exercise their legal right, they should be quarantined? Just because i refuse to agree to provide government with information can't be deemed that i pose public health danger. That would mean when i refuse to answer us custom question i should be arrested because i could be terrorist. An Americans we have certain rights, one of them not being harassed/monitored by the government.
Bad idea to keep trying to tell others what they mean. |
I think, from a practical and survival perspective, I would want to know if I caught something really bad while overseas. If you read through the CFRs (available on the CDC website), the government at all levels can, in fact detain and quarantine you if they reasonably believe you are carrying a communicable disease. Of course, you can drive a Mack truck through "reasonably believe". Unless something has happened very recently, the last time the USG instituted a quarantine was the 1918-1919 Spanish Fly epidemic.
Here is the 2014 Ebola screening press release from DHS. There are all sorts of involuntary requirements on departing and arriving passengers. Realistically, any U.S. administration desiring to involuntarily detain groups of people it doesn't like can come up with much cheaper ways to do it. Medical quarantine involves expenses for diagnosing and treating diseases, including hospitalization. |
Originally Posted by looker001
(Post 31970236)
So because people decide to exercise their legal right, they should be quarantined? Just because i refuse to agree to provide government with information can't be deemed that i pose public health danger. That would mean when i refuse to answer us custom question i should be arrested because i could be terrorist. An Americans we have certain rights, one of them not being harassed/monitored by the government.
You may exercise your legal right to have a passport, but you will be required to pay certain amount of USD to get it. You may exercise your legal right to have a gun license, but you will subject to a criminal records check. You may exercise your legal right to be a candidate in an election, but your name will be in the ballot box and the paperwork with your data will be made public. |
Originally Posted by looker001
(Post 31966845)
So you are saying that public safety overrides constitutional liberty?
|
Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel
(Post 31975326)
People who refuse to comply with reasonable infection control measures should be in confinement until it is determined they aren't a threat.
|
Originally Posted by looker001
(Post 31966898)
No I am not trolling, I am shocked that people are willing to give up their liberty because government says it's for your own good. I feel that less government there is in my life the better
|
Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel
(Post 31975326)
People who refuse to comply with reasonable infection control measures should be in confinement until it is determined they aren't a threat.
And in the US, it seems like a lot of adults go to work when sick, even as the reasonable infection control measure may be to not go to work when having some flu symptoms; and this American pattern is probably still more of a public health vulnerability than this mutant coronavirus. Unless and until the CBP and CDC demand to see that all returning Americans and foreign visitors are vaccinated in at least the way public school-going children are required to be vaccinated to stay in public schools in “tough areas”, there should be questions about how CBP and CDC behave with regard to people at US ports of entry, since this is about more than just Wuhan coronavirus, SARS, MERS, or even Ebola. |
Originally Posted by looker001
(Post 31975334)
Under what legal doctrine?
|
In The New York Times:
First Wuhan Coronavirus Patient Identified in the United States A person in Washington State is infected with the Wuhan coronavirus, the first confirmed case in the United States of a mysterious respiratory infection that has killed at least six people and sickened hundreds more in Asia. The man is a resident of Snohomish County, Wash., who experienced symptoms after returning from a trip to the region around Wuhan, China, where the outbreak began. He was hospitalized with pneumonia last week, and infection with the coronavirus was confirmed on Monday afternoon. Local officials declined to identify the patient, who was said to be quite ill. News of the first case in the United States comes amid growing evidence that the virus spreads from person to person, although it is not clear how easily. *** |
Originally Posted by TWA884
(Post 31978055)
|
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 31970887)
Sure, at times. But government forcing a seemingly healthy person into quarantine only because the person stays quiet at a port of entry is not of those times.
The ability of claims about public safety to be used by government to control or otherwise coerce an individual traveler and intrude Into the life of such seemingly healthy individual should not be unlimited even at borders. The premise of this thread is what happens if a person refuses a quick health screening. If that persons refuses a simple scan for a fever then I believe government has the authority to hold that person until they are either proven to not be infected or give consent for the scan. I certainly don't think it is too much to ask to submit to a quick, no contact, temperature scan. Perhaps even more invasive testing should be considered seeing as how the current virus appears to be spreading. |
The WA state patient entered the US on January 15th
according to news reports; the screening at US airports started on the 17th. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.kir...outputType=amp It it unknown if the screening techniques would have caught the problem at the airport. What is known is that the virus will jump from human to human. The sick person took some sort of shared transportation from the airport. I was in Snohomish County WA recently but left the day the infected person arrived. Although I am not in a flu risk group (65 or older or immune system compromised) many of the my clients are 65 and older and I am more concerned about the risk to their health than I am about the CDC legality of screening; but that is just me. |
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 31978877)
The premise of this thread is what happens if a person refuses a quick health screening. If that persons refuses a simple scan for a fever then I believe government has the authority to hold that person until they are either proven to not be infected or give consent for the scan. I certainly don't think it is too much to ask to submit to a quick, no contact, temperature scan. Perhaps even more invasive testing should be considered seeing as how the current virus appears to be spreading.
|
Originally Posted by looker001
(Post 31979909)
Holding someone until they give consent is false imprisonment. Just because person refuses to give up his/her rights do not mean that police/government can hold that person until they agree to government demands.
What legal citations do you have that it is false imprisonment? |
Originally Posted by arttravel
(Post 31979928)
You have been provided with numerous citations that it is legal to screen and isolate people from at risk areas.
What legal citations do you have that it is false imprisonment? |
Originally Posted by looker001
(Post 31979936)
What people have posed is CDC reasoning of why they feel it's legal. It really haven't been litigated enough to really know for sure. Few cases where that did happen such as in Ebola, states were forced to retreat in their screening.
|
Originally Posted by looker001
(Post 31979936)
What people have posed is CDC reasoning of why they feel it's legal. It really haven't been litigated enough to really know for sure. Few cases where that did happen such as in Ebola, states were forced to retreat in their screening.
Specific Laws and Regulations Governing the Control of Communicable Diseases |
Originally Posted by looker001
(Post 31979936)
What people have posed is CDC reasoning of why they feel it's legal. It really haven't been litigated enough to really know for sure. Few cases where that did happen such as in Ebola, states were forced to retreat in their screening.
The CDC has in fact increased screening of passengers traveling from Wuhan to the US to additional airports, and passengers whose travel originates there are being rerouted to enter the the US through one of the airports with a CDC screening station. |
The period between a person getting exposed to the Wuhan coronavirus and showing symptoms from it can be 4-5 days, right? That’s a pretty big window for someone to carry it to a new area without a person being detected for it prior to potentially spreading it. I wouldn’t count on CBP and CDC’s airport screening doing a whole lot of stopping such virus when that kind of window exists. Making people with ticketed flights from Wuhan to the US go to select airports for screening may seem great at first blush (and I am glad it’s being done), but realize this: given people may split tickets, this redirecting is not going to plug this situation up entirely.
Keep it in perspective, but there are other, still seemingly far more common viruses local to us that bring a lot of people to meet mortality. |
Originally Posted by looker001
(Post 31979936)
What people have posed is CDC reasoning of why they feel it's legal. It really haven't been litigated enough to really know for sure. Few cases where that did happen such as in Ebola, states were forced to retreat in their screening.
FDA-approved thermometers must be used. The use of non-FDA approved thermometers and technology such as smart phone applications are not permitted. And The right to retain and consult with legal counsel telephonically or by other means, including in person, where possible in a medically safe manner; 1i. The right to legally challenge the quarantine and/or isolation order. If an individual seeks to legally challenge quarantine or isolation on an emergent basis in a court with jurisdiction, the Department agrees not to request an adjournment of any related hearing for u period of more than 48 hours. Unless stayed by the Commissioner or a court with jurisdiction, a written order for quarantine or isolation shall remain in full force and effect for the period stated in the order until disposed of on the merits through judicial review. Amongst others -- a copy of the settlement can read on the ACLU website https://www.aclu-nj.org/files/4615/0...eement_opt.pdf There is no evidence that the state retreated from the screening unless one considers the mandate to use a proper thermometer and not a smartphone to check temperature as a "retreat". So I ask where is the evidence to support your statement of "states were forced to retreat in their screening"? |
I was wondering why any person, who has the capacity to understand the potential damage of a pandemic, would not want to cooperate with a screening program?
|
Problem with checking temps as people get off planes is that those people, if they have this new mutation, have already spread it before any fever appears; then the game of catch up begins. Further, there are the people like me who never run a fever with any illness. There aren't many of us but we are capable of doing lots of damage.
|
Originally Posted by petaluma1
(Post 31993059)
Problem with checking temps as people get off planes is that those people, if they have this new mutation, have already spread it before any fever appears; then the game of catch up begins. Further, there are the people like me who never run a fever with any illness. There aren't many of us but we are capable of doing lots of damage.
In other words, it reduces the rate of damage spreading; and that’s the purpose because buying time in this way does help save lives from being killed due to the viral infection, its symptoms or other health complications arising from or after a viral infection. Bacterial infections are still a whole lot easier to control on average than viral ones, which is in substantial part why newly discovered viruses in humans cause health authorities to get very anxious. |
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 31994249)
That assumes that a carrier of the virus can be a communicator of the virus from the moment of initial exposure to a disease agent, and such assumptions don’t necessarily hold as being true. Also, symptomatic carriers may be more infectious carriers than other carriers, and this holding as being true would not be unusual.
In other words, it reduces the rate of damage spreading; and that’s the purpose because buying time in this way does help save lives from being killed due to the viral infection, its symptoms or other health complications arising from or after a viral infection. Bacterial infections are still a whole lot easier to control on average than viral ones, which is in substantial part why newly discovered viruses in humans cause health authorities to get very anxious. |
One of the most effective impacts of the screening is to drive home the seriousness of the situation and to provide information to travelers which they may use should symptoms appear later. This includes simple advice such as making certain to tell your doc that you've just returned from Wuhan should you need to consult for any illness.
None of these measures are absolute and they all have holes in them. But, they are non-invasive, helpful, and do limit risk. That is a good thing. |
Originally Posted by looker001
(Post 31979909)
Holding someone until they give consent is false imprisonment. Just because person refuses to give up his/her rights do not mean that police/government can hold that person until they agree to government demands.
|
Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel
(Post 31998135)
Observe contempt of court. Plenty of examples of people being jailed until they do something.
|
Originally Posted by looker001
(Post 31964736)
I am having very hard time believing that a judge would let us citizen be quarantine just because that person came from a region with potential virus and is refusing to submit to government testing. Now if the person is actually showing sign of symptoms that is different but from my understanding CDC is testing everyone.
If a person already shows symptoms as you suggests, he's not put in quarantine but into hospital. |
Originally Posted by CDC
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. Also, it is possible to be hospitalized under quarantine even when going just with CDC language.
Originally Posted by looker001
(Post 31998143)
You're talking Apple and oranges. What you are describing is legal order by the judge. CDC is not judge and jury and neither is the police. Also I am having hard time seeing judge agreeing that person don't have 5th amendment right in the case when it's giving up information about themselves. I am just not seeing it happen.
|
Originally Posted by looker001
(Post 31998143)
You're talking Apple and oranges. What you are describing is legal order by the judge. CDC is not judge and jury and neither is the police. Also I am having hard time seeing judge agreeing that person don't have 5th amendment right in the case when it's giving up information about themselves. I am just not seeing it happen.
|
in a cautionary corollary, in the United States some jurisdictions allow persons who spread disease to be charged criminally; a few jurisdictions have allowed charges to be brought even though the infecting person has not been diagnosed, did not display outward symptoms of infection and infected others without intent to infect. Irregardless[sic] of the likely success of such a prosecution it seems to me the prudent course of behavior would be to minimize the risk of prosecution in the first place.
In addition to potential criminal liability such an infected person will also have potential civil liability for negligently infecting others (a greater likelihood than criminal charges). I would not want to be in the shoes of someone who refused to be screened and then is found to have infected others..... |
Originally Posted by Section 107
(Post 31999661)
in a cautionary corollary, in the United States some jurisdictions allow persons who spread disease to be charged criminally; a few jurisdictions have allowed charges to be brought even though the infecting person has not been diagnosed, did not display outward symptoms of infection and infected others without intent to infect. Irregardless[sic] of the likely success of such a prosecution it seems to me the prudent course of behavior would be to minimize the risk of prosecution in the first place.
In addition to potential criminal liability such an infected person will also have potential civil liability for negligently infecting others (a greater likelihood than criminal charges). I would not want to be in the shoes of someone who refused to be screened and then is found to have infected others..... |
Originally Posted by looker001
(Post 32006491)
Jurisdiction can pass any laws they like. Until and unless they get tested in court, it's unknown if they are constitutional or not. For example many place have no loitering law on public property but in most cases those laws will be declared unconstitutional if challenged in court.
|
LAist:
No Official Quarantine For US Passengers From Wuhan, China U.S. citizens traveling on a jet chartered to evacuate them from Wuhan, China landed this morning in Riverside County. Approximately 210 passengers arriving from the epicenter a deadly outbreak of coronavirus are being held at the March Air Reserve Base for 72 hours to have their symptoms checked. That said, authorities noted no one is being officially limited to the base.
*** |
Originally Posted by TWA884
(Post 32010375)
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:32 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.