Coronovirus Quarantine, voluntary or enforced Options

[oldstoat]

I appreciate that quarantine is required. With reference to this new coronovirus.

Yet. Having read the public health act, on legislation.gov, the Secretary of State, can only enforce a quarantine on people who HAVE a notifiable illness.

Have I missed a bit? Can the Secretary of State legally enforce/forbid a person from walking out, if it is only a suspicion of a notifiable disease?

If yes, what is the law behind it.

PS. not disagreeing about the why. Curious about the law only.

[Advertisement]

[Fredd]

If you're referring to the people evacuated from Wuhan, from the news reports I've read they had to sign contracts agreeing to the quarantine arrangements as a condition of their evacuation, so it doesn't sound as if there's a statutory provision the government believed it could rely on to force quarantine of undiagnosed people.

[oldstoat]

If you're referring to the people evacuated from Wuhan, from the news reports I've read they had to sign contracts agreeing to the quarantine arrangements as a condition of their evacuation, so it doesn't sound as if there's a statutory provision the government believed it could rely on to force quarantine of undiagnosed people.

not aware of that re contract

interesting, re contract. That could open a whole new ball game. Refusal of HM via HMG to help her subjects, unless a contract is signed under duress.

This post has been edited by oldstoat: Sun, 2 Feb 2020 - 18:39

[mickR]

I would say HM via Government clearly was helping her subjects! They have been helped by way of an offer to leave their chosen place of residence if they wished.

This post has been edited by mickR: Sun, 2 Feb 2020 - 22:40

[The Rookie]

Refusal of HM via HMG to help her subjects, unless a contract is signed under duress.

Except the Chinese government which has imposed the quarantine on Wuhan will only let other countries repatriate on condition they go into quarantine anyway.....

So the UK citizens have a choice, stay in Wuhan under mass quarantine or agree to quarantine in the UK. Effectively nothing to do with the UK gov't (except that as a citizen here I want them quarantined to protect the rest of us).

[oldstoat]

Refusal of HM via HMG to help her subjects, unless a contract is signed under duress.

Except the Chinese government which has imposed the quarantine on Wuhan will only let other countries repatriate on condition they go into quarantine anyway.....

So the UK citizens have a choice, stay in Wuhan under mass quarantine or agree to quarantine in the UK. Effectively nothing to do with the UK gov't (except that as a citizen here I want them quarantined to protect the rest of us).

but quarantine, whilst being able to walk around a city is not the same as stuck in a room.

still no one has come up with a legal basis for preventative quarantine.

sign a contract under duress, makes it invalid.

[mike5100]

Connected with this - but only partly related to the law. If no-one develops any symptoms in the 14 days, then everyone goes home. But if one guy develops symptoms at say 10 days does the (14 day) clock start again for all 80 'detainees'?
Mike

[Fredd]

Connected with this - but only partly related to the law. If no-one develops any symptoms in the 14 days, then everyone goes home. But if one guy develops symptoms at say 10 days does the (14 day) clock start again for all 80 'detainees'?
Mike

Presumably not as that individual must have been infected before the start of the quarantine period, the same as for all the others. You'd just wait out the remaining 4 days to clear the rest.

[The Rookie]

but quarantine, whilst being able to walk around a city is not the same as stuck in a room.

sign a contract under duress, makes it invalid.

You just argued against your own argument there was duress....... How can it be duress if they are opting to go to a more restrictive regime, it's the opposite.

They don't appear to be 'stuck in a room' anyway according to the gov't CMO.

Connected with this - but only partly related to the law. If no-one develops any symptoms in the 14 days, then everyone goes home. But if one guy develops symptoms at say 10 days does the (14 day) clock start again for all 80 'detainees'?
Mike

Presumably not as that individual must have been infected before the start of the quarantine period, the same as for all the others. You'd just wait out the remaining 4 days to clear the rest.

I think the question was how someone in quarantine could infect the others in quarantine so those the person was in contact with would have to then wait out another gestation period.



The Chief Medical officer has stated they are not in solitary conditions.

The quarantined Britons are being isolated from the general public, but not in "solitary confinement", according to the chief medical officer.

"We intend them to be housed in a way which is pleasant," he added.

So logically those in the same ward/group would have to restart their 14 days?

from https://www.bbc.com/news/health-51325192

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Wed, 5 Feb 2020 - 04:49

[The Slithy Tove]

If no-one develops any symptoms in the 14 days, then everyone goes home. But if one guy develops symptoms at say 10 days does the (14 day) clock start again for all 80 'detainees'?

If they are all mixing together with each other, then I would guess "yes". But if they are all being kept apart, then "no".

[cp8759]

If you're referring to the people evacuated from Wuhan, from the news reports I've read they had to sign contracts agreeing to the quarantine arrangements as a condition of their evacuation, so it doesn't sound as if there's a statutory provision the government believed it could rely on to force quarantine of undiagnosed people.

Surely such a contract would not be worth the paper it's written on? You can't consent to surrender your liberty, so in effect it's a voluntary quarantine. If someone were evacuated and then chose to break the quarantine, I don't see how the government could prevent that.

[Fredd]

If someone were evacuated and then chose to break the quarantine, I don't see how the government could prevent that.

I don't think they could. I've no idea what this reported contract actually contains, but something along the lines of maybe being stuck with the bill for your evacuation and the quarantine facilities if you failed to complete the quarantine period could be quite a disincentive to doing a runner.

[cp8759]

If someone were evacuated and then chose to break the quarantine, I don't see how the government could prevent that.

I don't think they could. I've no idea what this reported contract actually contains, but something along the lines of maybe being stuck with the bill for your evacuation and the quarantine facilities if you failed to complete the quarantine period could be quite a disincentive to doing a runner.

Could well be, but you would have thought there should be some statutory provision to cover this. If someone does a runner and infects a load of people, it's not much comfort to know that the government could sue the individual.

[southpaw82]

Part 2A of the Public Health (Control of Diseases) Act 1984 makes provision for, among other things, quarantines. I’ve no idea if the relevant secondary legislation covers the coronavirus.

[cp8759]

Found it: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/22/section/45G and the power of a constable to take the person into custody and return them to wherever it is that they should be is under s45G. The powers are agnostic as to what the infection or disease actually is, so there's no need for the legislation to mention coronavirus as far as I can see.

[Fredd]

The powers are agnostic as to what the infection or disease actually is, so there's no need for the legislation to mention coronavirus as far as I can see.

Doesn't that depend on what regulations have been made under section 7?

(7)The appropriate Minister must by regulations make provision about the evidence that must be available to a justice of the peace before the justice can be satisfied as mentioned in subsection (1) or (3).

[southpaw82]

Found it: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/22/section/45G and the power of a constable to take the person into custody and return them to wherever it is that they should be is under s45G. The powers are agnostic as to what the infection or disease actually is, so there's no need for the legislation to mention coronavirus as far as I can see.

AIUI, secondary legislation sets out the conditions to which the powers apply - there's even one just for AIDS!

[cp8759]

The powers are agnostic as to what the infection or disease actually is, so there's no need for the legislation to mention coronavirus as far as I can see.

Doesn't that depend on what regulations have been made under section 7?

(7)The appropriate Minister must by regulations make provision about the evidence that must be available to a justice of the peace before the justice can be satisfied as mentioned in subsection (1) or (3).

But again the regulations are generic, rather than disease-specific: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/65...gulation/4/made

And this makes perfect sense, as long as it is scientifically established that a disease is infectious and dangerous to public health, what would be the point of getting a minister to make a disease-specific SI?

Coronavirus would be covered by "a summary of the characteristics and effects of the infection or contamination which P has" as per reg 4b.

[Fredd]

And this makes perfect sense, as long as it is scientifically established that a disease is infectious and dangerous to public health, what would be the point of getting a minister to make a disease-specific SI?

Because we don't allow scientists to decide when people should be forcibly detained. And you're still ignoring the requirement in section 7.

Anyway, the Secretary of State seems to accept the need for a regulation since they've now made one specifically to allow quarantine in the case of coronavirus.

[southpaw82]

Officials have told the BBC the announcement uses legal language to keep people who have travelled from Wuhan in quarantine

“Legal language” isn’t a f**king magic spell