Legality of CDC flu screening

Old Jan 17, 20, 6:47 pm
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 64
Legality of CDC flu screening

"More than 100 staffers from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are being deployed to three US airports to check passengers arriving from Wuhan, China, for fever and other symptoms of a mysterious new virus that's killed two and infected dozens in China, the CDC announced Friday."
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/17/healt...-bn/index.html

So what happens if passengers refuse screening? From my understanding as American citizen I can't be forced to undergo screening unless it can be established that i am danger to myself or others.
looker001 is offline  
Old Jan 17, 20, 8:30 pm
  #2  
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: VNY | BUR | LAX
Programs: AAdvantage | MileagePlus
Posts: 12,413
The legal authority is 42 U.S. Code § 264.

It's been used in the past to screen arriving international passengers for SARS and Ebola.

Not sure what happens if someone refuses. Quarantine?
TWA884 is offline  
Old Jan 17, 20, 9:02 pm
  #3  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Programs: NZ *G
Posts: 5,911
Quarantine would be the logical next step.... As far as "establishing you are a danger "...what are the requirements there? It may be as simple as establishing that you came from an infected area.....(I have no idea.... but may I ask WHAT the objection to screening is anyway?... Ive read far too much about the historical spread of infectious diseases to want to even take a chance.....)
Loren Pechtel and knwl9 like this.
trooper is offline  
Old Jan 17, 20, 9:10 pm
  #4  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 64
Originally Posted by TWA884 View Post
The legal authority is 42 U.S. Code § 264.

It's been used in the past to screen arriving international passengers for SARS and Ebola.

Not sure what happens if someone refuses. Quarantine?
I was under impression that was challenged when states tried to do Ebola quarantine and there was changes.

Originally Posted by trooper View Post
Quarantine would be the logical next step.... As far as "establishing you are a danger "...what are the requirements there? It may be as simple as establishing that you came from an infected area.....(I have no idea.... but may I ask WHAT the objection to screening is anyway?... Ive read far too much about the historical spread of infectious diseases to want to even take a chance.....)
I refuse to follow government directions. Regarding quarantine, i was under impression that there was settlement/changes after the lawsuit as result of Ebola quarantine. Also I would challenge quarantine under habeas corpus petition. It would be up to government to provide evidence i am danger to the public and coming from area in itself i would think is not sufficient to hold someone against their will
looker001 is offline  
Old Jan 17, 20, 10:56 pm
  #5  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,129
Originally Posted by looker001 View Post
I was under impression that was challenged when states tried to do Ebola quarantine and there was changes.
If you're referring to the Kaci Hickox case against the state of New Jersey, according to her lawyer, the outcome was "Under the settlement, anyone quarantined in New Jersey can contest the order and has the rights to have legal counsel, to be given prior notice of any hearings and to send and receive communications. It also guarantees a person the right to privacy so long as it does not interfere with vital public health needs."

That doesn't mean the CDC can't forcibly quarantine anyone they believe to "to be infected witha communicable disease in aqualifying stage."
CDTraveler is offline  
Old Jan 18, 20, 12:55 am
  #6  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 89,788
CBP and CDC could delay admitting the person and wait to cherry pick on something as a potential symptom of some public health threat and then latch on to that to mandate testing to see if quarantine/isolation is necessary or not:

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2014/10/08/...elers-airports

Some would perhaps call the result a quarantine/isolation anyway.

Check this out too about “Federal and State Quarantine and Isolation Authority”:

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL33201.pdf

It’s about more than just quarantine and isolation authority, but it covers that too.

Last edited by GUWonder; Jan 18, 20 at 1:14 am
GUWonder is online now  
Old Jan 18, 20, 1:16 am
  #7  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 64
Originally Posted by CDTraveler View Post
If you're referring to the Kaci Hickox case against the state of New Jersey, according to her lawyer, the outcome was "Under the settlement, anyone quarantined in New Jersey can contest the order and has the rights to have legal counsel, to be given prior notice of any hearings and to send and receive communications. It also guarantees a person the right to privacy so long as it does not interfere with vital public health needs."

That doesn't mean the CDC can't forcibly quarantine anyone they believe to "to be infected witha communicable disease in aqualifying stage."
Very interesting reading, thanks for the link. I guess the main question is what evidence does CDC needs to quanrantine someone? Going even further let says they do quarantine someone and that person refuses to be tested, what happens when habeas corpus petition is filed. CDC needs to present evidence that person is danger to others. They can't just say he refuse to be tested, so we going to quarantine . That would violates us constitution.

Originally Posted by GUWonder View Post
They could delay admitting the person and wait to cherry pick on something as a potential symptom of some public health threat and then latch on to that to mandate testing to see if quarantine/isolation is necessary or not. Some would perhaps call that a quarantine/isolation anyway.

Check this out:

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL33201.pdf
I do not believe you can be forced to undergo testing. Yes they can quarantine you but then we than get in to habeas corpus petition and what evidence gets presented to the judge? I am betting ACLU would take this type of case. At the end of day, judge will make final determination and i am having hard time believing that judge will approve quarantine just because someone refused to undergo testing to satisfy CDC.
looker001 is offline  
Old Jan 18, 20, 1:34 am
  #8  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 89,788
I would be very surprised if the average American judge would deny a “quarantine or mandatory testing” quandary for a target when CDC says the target was coming from an area hit by a serious public health danger (of a communicable disease sort) and exhibiting some symptoms of the communicable disease being seen as a serious public health danger at the time. At a federal appeals court level or higher, I would expect near-certain defeat for those complaining about being stopped by CDC when found to be uncooperative with even testing of a rather non-invasive sort during a public health emergency.
Often1 and hhdl like this.
GUWonder is online now  
Old Jan 18, 20, 2:02 am
  #9  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 64
Originally Posted by GUWonder View Post
I would be very surprised if the average American judge would deny a “quarantine or mandatory testing” quandary for a target when CDC says the target was coming from an area hit by a serious public health danger (of a communicable disease sort) and exhibiting some symptoms of the communicable disease being seen as a serious public health danger at the time. At a federal appeals court level or higher, I would expect near-certain defeat for those complaining about being stopped by CDC when found to be uncooperative with even testing of a rather non-invasive sort during a public health emergency.
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.
looker001 is offline  
Old Jan 18, 20, 6:39 am
  #10  
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 208
Originally Posted by looker001 View Post
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.
I am having a hard time believing that a US citizen would be willing to potentially start a public health epidemic by refusing a simple test.
pfreet is offline  
Old Jan 18, 20, 8:06 am
  #11  
TBD
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: MCO
Programs: All The Programs
Posts: 1,509
You're talking about someone trying to force their way in to the USA with a poorly-understood and potentially-lethal virus. And you think a judge or jury would have a hard time labeling you a "public health threat"? Don't be ridiculous.

Originally Posted by pfreet View Post
I am having a hard time believing that a US citizen would be willing to potentially start a public health epidemic by refusing a simple test.
Nevermind there is clearly some benefit to the traveler to know whether (s)he is infected.

Last edited by TBD; Jan 18, 20 at 8:11 am
TBD is offline  
Old Jan 18, 20, 8:55 am
  #12  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 452
Originally Posted by looker001 View Post
I refuse to follow government directions.
how do you get through the airport? do you pay taxes? drive on roads?
84fiero likes this.
mctaste is offline  
Old Jan 18, 20, 9:14 am
  #13  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 89,788
Originally Posted by looker001 View Post
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 had just come from an area hit by a serious public health danger (of a communicable disease sort) and has been observed exhibiting some symptoms (of the communicable disease that is seen as a serious public health danger at the time) and is non-cooperative in terms of being tested, then I wouldn’t be surprised if even a panel of judges would agree that such person could be subject to a quarantine or other hold for observation absent an agreement to be tested and further cooperate.

Mandatory invasive testing of persons not exhibiting any symptoms for the disease is one thing. Mandatory non-invasive testing of persons not exhibiting any symptoms but having had just come from staying in the disease-affected area is another thing. I would be surprised if they were viewed the same way by most.
nancypants likes this.
GUWonder is online now  
Old Jan 18, 20, 9:30 am
  #14  
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 83
Originally Posted by looker001 View Post



I refuse to follow government directions. l
I assure you that if I am ever the Captain of the flight you are on, I will have you removed simply for this statement since the vast majority of airplane rules are issued by the FAA or the relevant countries regulatory authority. So you wouldn't have to worry about avoiding the CDC screening because you could stay in Wuhan or whereever you happen to be.... Good grief, grow up would you....
Raymoland is offline  
Old Jan 18, 20, 9:44 am
  #15  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 16,254
<deleted by moderator>

There is an unknown form of pneumonia that has developed in China and so far has migrated to Japan. Treatment options seem limited. This isn't just a China problem but could have a worldwide impact. A non US citizen exhibiting possible symptoms who won't cooperate could be turned away although that presents medical risks to others. A citizen who displays symptoms and won't cooperate would likely be held given authorities time to determine if the person is infected.

I see nothing wrong with a quarantine until a determination is made. Doesn't take that long to determine if a person is a carrier of a given strain of a virus.

Last edited by TWA884; Jan 18, 20 at 3:16 pm Reason: Redact quote of and response to deleted post
Boggie Dog is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: