Maybe you can be a test case

I recognize that I approach this issue from a different position than some others and that's OK. I believe that protecting the populace is a prime responsibility of government and that would include emerging health threats. If ones wishes to review standing law on the matter I think the link posted below is a good starting point. If a persons beliefs are such that they feel the law is unconstitutional then means are available to make challenges. A fine way to start that process would be to travel to Wuhan and on return refuse to cooperate with government officials.

Specific Laws and Regulations Governing the Control of Communicable Diseases

I think your interpretation that states retreated in screening is just plain wrong. Quarantine policies were modified, not 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.

I do not think the Ebola lawsuit resulted in the state retreating in the screening,. The settlement had clarification on the methods of screening -- such as:

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.

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.

Observe contempt of court. Plenty of examples of people being jailed until they do something.

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.

You do realize that the reason of quarantine is to put suspected, but non-symptomatic carriers in isolated conditions during the incubation period of the disease. And yes, "just because" a person comes from an infected region is reason enough to quarantine. Obviously "isolation" in this context is not the same as in a penitentiary context.

If a person already shows symptoms as you suggests, he's not put in quarantine but into hospital.

But those are not the only ways the words isolation and quarantine can be used.

Also, it is possible to be hospitalized under quarantine even when going just with CDC language.

Criminal proceedings, sure. But quarantine and isolation aren’t criminal matters.

There is clearly a public benefit to screening for things like this. The screenings seem reasonable. The summary posted upthread by arttravel indicates that a person has the right to legally challenge a quarantine or isolation order, so it's not as if the individual is without recourse to the courts if they believe the state has acted improperly at that point.