You screw that. I don’t even like her. She seems kinda whiney. :rolleyes:
According to the OP -
*What to do if someone refuses to adhere to quarantine?
…So, this debate is NOT about what the correct length of quarantine should be. The debate is about once a length of quarantine has been established by the experts tasked to figure such things out, how do we enforce it against an unwilling person? It seems that id=f he/she is determined to not be quarantined and tries to leave the area, she must be stopped. And she should be stopped by means that incur the least risk to those stopping her and society. So, a jail-like structure? Restraints? Medication?*
If you take this specific case out of the mix, should contagious people be stopped by means that incur the least risk to those stopping her and society? Should the contagious be housed in a jail-like structure? Placed in restraints? Medicated (involuntarily)?
This is where the rubber hits the road. Let’s say she decides to leave the house and go to the mall, or wherever, how does the trooper forcibly quarantine her without putting himself at risk? We’ve had other people who were in voluntary quarantine and decided to leave, so this seems like something that we should plan for. It may be best to just have people go to a special facility, that is locked. I have no desire to punish any of them, so we should make it as nice as we reasonably can, since people will be staying there for three weeks.
You know what’s medically risky? Putting holes in an ebola carrier, such that their blood leaks everywhere.
What the hell’s wrong with non-lethal methods of restraint before resorting to the pump them full of bullets approach? Tasers. Tranq darts. Hell, this looks like a perfect use for those giant nets they use to catch crazy folks in the silent movies.
@DWMarch: no, it’s to execute those who refuse quarantine and resist attempts to forcibly be quarantined. Perhaps I should have framed it more as a last resort, because that’s what it is and should be seen as.
First, IANAD. Depending upon the type of test used and how soon after infection it is entirely possible for an infected but asymptomatic individual to test negative before eventually falling ill. That is based upon our understanding of how the infections cycle proceeds. It can take several days for a patient to test positive on an ELISA test. For example, in animal tests it took six days after a known inoculation before a primate tested positive.
As to what to do with such patients… you lock them up. It’s been challenged before in courts and the courts have repeatedly upheld the quarantine power of the state.
We used to have sanatoriums to house infectious tuberculosis patients though the need for such dropped remarkably after the invention of streptomycin. The concept is valid and is still applied in the modern day with particularly drug-resistant strains of TB.
The confinement is to a state-funded locked facility with reasonable patient comforts. No reason patients can’t have normal street clothing, decent food, access to a proper bathroom, medical care, computer and cell phones with internet service, and so on. Not exactly luxury spa but at least what you would find at a modest hotel.
At least with the Ebola concerns any such quarantine is not indefinite. Some of these TB patients are quarantined for months.
“Through its direct sales force and numerous distribution partners throughout the world, Lakeland has secured new orders relating to the fight against the spread of Ebola. Orders have been received from government agencies around the world as well as other public and private sector customers. Certain of these contracts require weekly delivery guarantees or shipments through the first calendar quarter of 2015. The aggregate of orders won by Lakeland that are believed to have resulted from the Ebola crisis amount to approximately 1 million Haz Mat suits with additional orders for other products, such as hoods, foot coverings and gloves. Lakeland started shipping such orders only in October, which is the end of its fiscal 2015 third quarter reporting period. The main impact from Ebola-related orders received to date will not be realized until the Company’s fiscal 2015 fourth quarter ended January 31, 2015. …”
Apparently global governments consider it a real threat.
If someone refuses to adhere to a voluntary quarantine, do nothing. That’s the point of it being voluntary. If it’s a legally obligated quarantine, then go through due process to punish them for breaking it.
Don’t, under any circumstances, lock people up without due process. Your right to be free from disease ddoesn’t trump their right to liberty.
These would be good questions if there were actual good scientific reasons, and medical experts, in support of Hickox’s quarantine. There’s no good reason for her quarantine, so she should not be forced to do anything.
If she was actually infected and refusing to cooperate, then she should be forcibly quarantined.
In fact, it does, or else we wouldn’t have quarantines.
Due process doesn’t apply here. A quarantine isn’t a sentence. There’s no “due process” to decide if you should be locked up in a psychiatric hospital, either, for instance. That’s an administrative/medical issue, not a judicial one. You might have legal recourses against this decision, but it’s not the same thing.
Sigh. As I’ve stated numerous times now, assume that to be the case. Hickox is just who happens to be in the news now. My question is much broader.
This is what I’m looking at. But even more specifically, what does “forcibly quarantined” mean? How far can we go to quarantine someone who does not want to be quarantined. Specifically.
Health officials, probably with law enforcement support (and proper protective gear), detain (forcibly, if necessary) the infected person and transport them to the quarantine facility, and guard the facility to make sure they stay inside. Is that specific enough?
So, arrest them, basically? What law have they broken? Being ill isn’t a crime. What authority do they have to do this?
At the absolute minimum, the health officials need to present the evidence to a judge, who can then determine whether there’s sufficient danger to the public to necessitate quarantine. Or, declare a state of emergency and ignore people’s rights. But I doubt there’s a disease in existence that would justify that.
If the law allows anyone to be quarantined based solely on the word of a medical professional (or otherwise incarcerated - I’m thinking of mentally ill people here), then the law needs to be change.
The lack of judicial oversight there is extremely disturbing, in my opinion. At most, someone should be temporarily detained pending a judge determining whether there’s need for quarantine or isolation, and by temporarily I mean at most a few hours.
That it’s easier to quarantine someone than arrest someone is extremely wrong.
No it’s not. Being arrested is about you having committed a crime, and the arrest to have a reasonable likelihood of generating a guilty verdict. A quarantine is issued not because you have done something wrong, but because you pose a risk to society. Why should your desire to not be held in quarantine trump you possibly infecting others, and indirectly, many, many others? In a city, the numbers can skyrocket exponentially.
Yes. Thank you. One of the thing that concerns me is what to do with a person who is willing to fight being quarantined. We’ve also seen scenarios on shows like COPS, where the individual is intent on not being confined. She we allow this person to engage in a physical altercation with a cop. And if the cop is wearing one of those protective suits, he’s not really in a position to subdue someone and keep safe. Tazing him is an option, but even that doesn’t also guarantee compliance. So, maybe have a tranquilizer dart on hand. Just trying to run through worst case scenarios in my head.
It raises some interesting issues because on the one hand, the person hasn’t done anything wrong. On the other, if they’re carrying a deadly contagion, we must protect the public.
