They aren’t officially limited to remaining on base for that time.

Lots of interesting opinion and viewpoints in this thread so it occurs to me that perhaps some factual information may prove helpful. From the CDC, here is a summary of authority for inspection and quarantine with links to the specific authority at the end:

Isolation and Quarantine

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 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.

In addition to serving as medical functions, isolation and quarantine also are “police power” functions, derived from the right of the state to take action affecting individuals for the benefit of society.

Federal Law

The federal government derives its authority for isolation and quarantine from the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Under section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S. Code § 264), the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to take measures to prevent the entry and spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the United States and between states.

Federal isolation and quarantine are authorized for these communicable diseases

• Cholera
• Diphtheria
• Infectious tuberculosis
• Plague
• Smallpox
• Yellow fever
• Viral hemorrhagic fevers
• Severe acute respiratory syndromes [emphasis added]
• Flu that can cause a pandemic

Federal isolation and quarantine are authorized by Executive Order of the President. The President can revise this list by Executive Order.

The authority for carrying out these functions on a daily basis has been delegated to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

CDC’s Role

Under 42 Code of Federal Regulations parts 70 and 71, CDC is authorized to detain, medically examine, and release persons arriving into the United States and traveling between states who are suspected of carrying these communicable diseases.

As part of its federal authority, CDC routinely monitors persons arriving at U.S. land border crossings and passengers and crew arriving at U.S. ports of entry for signs or symptoms of communicable diseases.

When alerted about an ill passenger or crew member by the pilot of a plane or captain of a ship, CDC may detain passengers and crew as necessary to investigate whether the cause of the illness on board is a communicable disease.

State, Local, and Tribal Law

States have police power functions to protect the health, safety, and welfare of persons within their borders. To control the spread of disease within their borders, states have laws to enforce the use of isolation and quarantine.

These laws can vary from state to state and can be specific or broad. In some states, local health authorities implement state law. In most states, breaking a quarantine order is a criminal misdemeanor.

Tribes also have police power authority to take actions that promote the health, safety, and welfare of their own tribal members. Tribal health authorities may enforce their own isolation and quarantine laws within tribal lands, if such laws exist.

Who Is in Charge

The federal government

• Acts to prevent the entry of communicable diseases into the United States. Quarantine and isolation may be used at U.S. ports of entry.
• Is authorized to take measures to prevent the spread of communicable diseases between states.
• May accept state and local assistance in enforcing federal quarantine.
• May assist state and local authorities in preventing the spread of communicable diseases.

State, local, and tribal authorities

• Enforce isolation and quarantine within their borders.

It is possible for federal, state, local, and tribal health authorities to have and use all at the same time separate but coexisting legal quarantine power in certain events. In the event of a conflict, federal law is supreme.

Enforcement

If a quarantinable disease is suspected or identified, CDC may issue a federal isolation or quarantine order.

Public health authorities at the federal, state, local, and tribal levels may sometimes seek help from police or other law enforcement officers to enforce a public health order.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Coast Guard officers are authorized to help enforce federal quarantine orders.

Breaking a federal quarantine order is punishable by fines and imprisonment.

Federal law allows the conditional release of persons from quarantine if they comply with medical monitoring and surveillance.

Federal Quarantine Rarely used

Large-scale isolation and quarantine was last enforced during the influenza (“Spanish Flu”) pandemic in 1918–1919. In recent history, only a few public health events have prompted federal isolation or quarantine orders.

here are links to the list of public laws, regulations and executive orders that authorize CDC to quarantine persons for communicable disease:
https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/speci...gulations.html

:

§70.18 Penalties.

(a) Persons in violation of this part are subject to a fine of no more than $100,000 if the violation does not result in a death or one year in jail, or both, or a fine of no more than $250,000 if the violation results in a death or one year in jail, or both, or as otherwise provided by law.

(b) Violations by organizations are subject to a fine of no more than $200,000 per event if the violation does not result in a death or $500,000 per event if the violation results in a death or as otherwise provided by law.



and here is the main regulation from CFR Title 42 Part 70 that authorizes examination of persons:

§70.10 Public health prevention measures to detect communicable disease.

(a) The Director may conduct public health prevention measures at U.S. airports, seaports, railway stations, bus terminals, and other locations where individuals may gather to engage in interstate travel, through non-invasive procedures determined appropriate by the Director to detect the presence of communicable diseases.

(b) As part of the public health prevention measures, the Director may require individuals to provide contact information such as U.S. and foreign addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, and other contact information, as well as information concerning their intended destination, health status, known or possible exposure history, and travel history.

§70.12 Medical examinations.

(a) The Director may require an individual to undergo a medical examination as part of a Federal order for quarantine, isolation, or conditional release for a quarantinable communicable disease.

(b) The Director shall promptly arrange for the medical examination to be conducted when one is required under this section and shall as part of the Federal order advise the individual that the medical examination shall be conducted by an authorized and licensed health worker, and with prior informed consent.

(c) As part of the medical examination, the Director may require an individual to provide information and undergo such testing as may be reasonably necessary to diagnose or confirm the presence or extent of infection with a quarantinable communicable disease.

(d) Individuals reasonably believed to be infected based on the results of a medical examination may be isolated, or if such results are inconclusive or unavailable, individuals may be quarantined or conditionally released in accordance with this part.
source: https://gov.ecfr.io/cgi-bin/text-idx...#se42.1.70_112

So as I understand the regulations: the Director has the authority to order an individual or group of individuals to be apprehended (temporarily taken into custody) for the purposes of detecting communicable disease. As part of detecting disease the Director may require the individual(s) to a) undergo medical examination and b) give certain information. Apprehension may last as long as necessary to detect the disease. If the disease is detected the Director may order the person(s) be quarantined, isolated or given conditional release. A review of the apprehension, isolation or quarantine must be conducted within 72 hours of apprehension, quarantine or isolation and each person has certain due process rights to challenge the apprehension, quarantine, isolation and conditional release. The review is conducted by someone other than the person authorizing the initial apprehension, isolation or quarantine.

Refusal to comply with the above constitutes a federal crime with steep financial penalties as well as imprisonment. State criminal law/penalties might also apply. Reading through the HHS'/CDC's response to comments in the NPRM indicates these authorities and penalties have been found constitutional.

"

"An American who was evacuated from Wuhan was placed in coronavirus quarantine after trying to flee California base"

"The person, who was not identified, has been ordered to stay in quarantine at the March Air Reserve Base near Riverside, California, until the "entire incubation period or until otherwise cleared," Riverside County Public Health said in a statement Thursday. The incubation period will be 14 days."

Will see if that person decides to sue.

That changed. https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/30/healt...day/index.html

I just can't find a reason to object to these people from being held until they are determine to not be infected.

Of course not. Those objecting are the sort who simply object for the sake of objecting.

How about civil rights?

After 14 days and the person is no longer a threat to public safety, he/she is free to sue and seek reparation. I'll even donate to his/her litigation fund.

As posted above, there is plenty of statutory authority to do isolation and quarantines for illness outbreaks like coronavirus.

It depends on the kind of coronavirus, as the US doesn’t do this for all or even most coronaviruses.

I have enough reason to suspect that the above is simply not true. Some who are students of the history of“civilization” and of the history of government know how fear has played out toward pandering to racism and other forms of xenophobia and violate (or otherwise redefine) civil rights and liberties for those traveling across borders, those at ports of entry and even for those who really aren’t migrants but may still be seen by some as being “foreign”, “global/cosmopolitan”, “outsiders”. Some who are or are the descendants of individuals subject to the use of fear about even “foreign diseases” and “diseased/dirty/disgusting/dangerous foreigners” (of some sort or another) to exclude, marginalize or even creatively seize/diminish assets of targeted groups may have a reason to object or be concerned about the (lack of) limits of government authority for reasons that have nothing to do with objecting for the sake of objecting. When was the last time you were concerned that you or someone you considered to be family or almost like family was in or going to end up in an internment camp for reasons of identity rather than solid evidence of the specific (held/restricted) !individual(s) having been a perpetrator of a crime or otherwise a clear and present danger to the public at large for health or whatever excuse government may use? It’s nice to be free of concern and fear about government overstretch, but not everyone has the same luxury ..... because government overstretch of this sort has happened, has been repeated and will continue to repeat itself for at least the foreseeable future ... for some of us even if not for all of us.

The reliable way of knowing is to take swabs of saliva/mucus from the nose/mouth tract or use a chunk of coughed up phlegm, but doing that before some number of days (say your 14 perhaps) after exposure means it could be missed. So it could be your14 days + the time for the taken samples to be iced and shipped to CDC in Atlanta, + RT-PCR testing time + the time to kick back the findings and have them used.

In this particular case I don't see government overreach or malfeasance being a factor. We know that these 200+/- individuals were evacuated by government from the very heart of the disease area. We know that their detention is limited and not holding them could have far reaching consequences for thousands of others These people have their civil rights but so does everyone else who could be potentially exposed to the virus. The detention is not being done out of the public eye and I doubt any of these people are prohibited from communicating with others.

Government has an absolute mandate to protect the entire populace and a short quarantine certainly fits that mandate. I see no civil rights abuse in this particular case and hope the courts would see it the same way if the question is made.

I note the linked article says: "were asked to stay for at least three days"

However, it goes on to say: "If any demand to go home during the initial 72-hour monitoring period, health officials will discuss their options and may issue an individual quarantine if they believe the person poses a danger of infecting others, Braden said."

So which is it? Either they are required to stay for 72 hours or not. I don't see that the government gets to change the rules in the middle of the game.

Update:

Americans who were evacuated from the epicenter of the China coronavirus outbreak will be quarantined for 14 days at a U.S. military base to prevent any spread of the infectious disease, federal health authorities said Friday.[/QUOTE]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-k-rep...es-11580467046
[QUOTE]

They're not sitting in jail cells either. I haven't been to March AFB in years, and since it's not an active-duty base anymore, I doubt if the hospital is in operation. They are probably in BOC (bachelor officer's quarters) or something equivalent, which is basically dorm rooms.

That sounds to me like "we ask that you stay for 3 days. You're free to say no, but if you do, then we'll order you to stay for 14 days."

It seems to be conditional, as perhaps someone who lives in an isolated cave by herself/himself in North Dakota and stays off the grid entirely and has their own private plane and landing facility outside the cave would be ok in a way that someone who lives in a crowded apartment building with a tiny apartment with school-going kids in NYC and needs to fly commercially to get home would not be.

It seems like the wiggle room they give themselves is sensible in that any and every security/safety-based mandate used should be conditional and not necessarily exclude consideration for individual circumstances.

Then it should have been a requirement because your scenario 1 is entirely pie-in-the-sky.

Update:

Quote:

---

Americans who were evacuated from the epicenter of the China coronavirus outbreak will be quarantined for 14 days at a U.S. military base to prevent any spread of the infectious disease, federal health authorities said Friday.

---

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-k-rep...es-11580467046

It’s meant to be almost like pie in the sky. But it’s also to make the point that there are scenarios where one person could possibly be allowed home without any big increase in risk while another could not be.

Or if you want a less pie in the sky scenario, what about the case of a potentially-exposed sovereign head of state/government or such foreign state’s potentially-exposed diplomat transiting a US airport? Maybe they get to go home when you or I may not.

This isn't what's happening now. Aside from the necessity to quarantine those returning from Wuhan, there's also a greater objective of dealing with a potential wider issue of an all out outbreak. Banning those from affected areas regardless of ethnicity is not racism or xenophobia. The epicenter appears to be Wuhan, and to the PRC's credit, they're aggressively trying to nib this in the bud. Let's try not to allow possibly infected to escape their net by flying into LAX and/or transiting via HKG, etc.

This has nothing to with China per se or the Chinese. If this virus sprung up in, say, Milan, I'd say ban the Italians and the EU until we have it under control. If the epicenter were Japan, I'd say ban Japan and SE Asia if it spreads there.

Until we bring this thing under control, social issues can take a back seat. We can address them once we have the luxury to do so.

See edited comment above; quarantine has been extended to 14 days for all.

This. The health officials prefer potential patients voluntarily agree to apprehension/quarantine/isolation and not force them to exercise their authority to issue a public health order for apprehension/quarantine/isolation. But if someone does not voluntarily agree then they will issue a public health order.

The 72 hours is used because during promulgation of the regulations that was agreed upon as a reasonable minimum amount of time needed to determine if detention/continued detention is warranted.

If it is indeed determined that this novel coronavirus has an incubation period of well more than 72 hours then you will begin to see quarantine/isolation orders for as long as is needed to ensure the subject does not pose a threat to public health. I am reassured that it is civilians and not politicians, law enforcement or military types that are responsible for these determinations as everything I have read and heard from them indicates to me that they are keenly aware of and loathe to put anyone in custody and certainly no longer than is necessary. I don't see from these public health types any indications of interest in abusing authority to take people into custody.

This news report has an image of the room where a quarantined Rhode Island family is housed at March Air Base:

Rhode Island family held in coronavirus quarantine air base

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.fly...dd027b6863.jpg

It looks like it hasn't been redecorated since the base shut down in the mid-90s.

Maybe not redecorated but certainly not bare walls or a jail cell.

As more is learned about this virus and how it spreads authorities know better how to try keeping the lid on. I continue to have no issues with potentially exposed persons being quarantined for a period of time

Looks like fairly typical DoD installation temporary lodging. I've stayed in many looking quite similar.

March ARB isn't closed. It just changed from an Air Force Base to an Air Reserve Base (ARB) when functions were realigned in the 90s and it moved under the Air Force Reserves. In fact the base lodging has continued to operate:

Air Force Inns

DoD lodging facilities definitely aren't known for their aesthetics or frequent remodeling, but are generally are clean, safe, and reasonably comfortable for what they are.

I doubt if they're using the hotel, since that's where the Reserve and National Guard guys stay when they're there. That pic shows what looks like a patio door, so it's probably not the Inn just from that. I.

The Washington Post:

To combat coronavirus, U.S. to deny entry to foreign nationals who recently visited China and quarantine returning Americans

Except now that family of 4 is being held for 14 days, not 3 days.

Oh happy day, with two young kids.

Maybe tomorrow they'll all hang out together and have a Super Bowl party. Might as well try to lighten things up when possible.

That may run contrary to the desire to make sure those staying at the base accommodations don’t mingle amongst each other and complicate the picture of who has been and has not been exposed to the Wuhan coronavirus.

FWIW, arriving into some parts of the US on CX — with plentiful CX first award space — from HKG involved nothing extraordinary from CBP and CDC at US airports of entry in recent days.

Curious to know what the Op thinks is the alternative? Let the virus spread unchecked and leave it up to individuals to sort themselves out?

Do you really see that that working out for the best?

Survival of the fittest by letting people deal with the good and bad of the natural world — infections included — has gotten humanity this far. But that’s not really a civilized alternative.

Serious question—how in the hell are they enforcing this? Because from my experience, they aren't.

Case in point: arrived at IAD today, cleared via GE as normal, and was never asked about my travel history to China in the last 14 days, either by the GE kiosk or by any airport or CBP personnel. Not even a temperature scanner like often seen at airports in Asia. Absent perhaps a direct Mainland China - US flight (or maybe single ticket Mainland China - XXX - US itinerary), it seems like nothing at all is being enforced. Does CBP/CDC not realize that people can fly China-EU-US itineraries (or infinite other permutations) on multiple tickets?

Or—shock—perhaps this really is just more theatre?

Because officially the ban hasn't taken effect yet. Here at ORD it starts at 1700 local today. We have one UA flight running late (1749) so we'll see what happens. MU is still scheduled for tomorrow, UA has one flight planned, HU I haven't seen any formal suspension. Tuesday UA intent is send 87 and 88 to ORD instead of EWR.

HKG-ORD has had nothing so far on this. Will it?

"Inn" here doesn't necessarily indicate that they only have basic hotel rooms - the AF lodging network is called "Air Force Inns" and typically the main facility on base is "such-and-such Inn" regardless of configuration. Base lodging often has a range of facilities from hotel/motel type rooms to multi-bedroom suites with kitchens for somewhat longer temporary stays. Just depends on the location. Patios and porches aren't uncommon.

It appears March Inn manages

The photos on the website seem to match the above news piece. Impossible to tell which of their 12 dozen+ buildings are being used with these folks. It could be that a specific building (or two) was set aside for the evacuees.

If there are too many DoD personnel needing lodging than what on-base space remains due to the evacuees, those DoD folks will simply stay in commercial lodging off base, as happens all the time when on-base lodging is full - quite routine.

In any case, the point is that the evacuees aren't staying in facilities that had been closed for nearly 20 years, but in currently operational buildings.

Correct and I'm not hearing anything that it will.

CX and BR still operating as normal.

I'm also hearing additional cities have been added over the 7, so this helps. EWR is one of them.

These people have already been in close proximity to each other during their flight from China.

Close proximity before or not, exposed to a then-contagious person before or not, encouraging closer physical mingling amongst the isolated/quarantined complicates matters in a way that is not good for clearing and clearing out people sooner than later without opening the door to possibly increasing the spread.