The only way you could legally be physically detained in quarantine at a conference would be by a sworn offer (e.g. a police officer) acting on a government order.
"Isolation is used to separate ill persons who have a communicable disease from those who are healthy. Isolation restricts the movement of ill persons to help stop the spread of certain diseases. For example, hospitals use isolation for patients with infectious tuberculosis.
Quarantine is used to separate and restrict the movement of well persons who may have been exposed to a communicable disease to see if they become ill. These people may have been exposed to a disease and do not know it, or they may have the disease but do not show symptoms. Quarantine can also help limit the spread of communicable disease."
Seems like the only real distinction is in terms of whether on not you're currently ill, but fundamentally they both restrict movement.
From HIMSS [1]: "Screening procedures established by the CDC will be conducted on site throughout the conference; HIMSS and the Orange County Convention Center will consult health teams at Orlando Health when necessary.
Should screening reveal an elevated risk for an attendee, the person will be isolated immediately to prevent exposure to conference participants."
[1] https://www.himssconference.org/updates/himss-update-coronav...
[2] https://www.hhs.gov/answers/public-health-and-safety/what-is...
On the cruise ship, which is known for being full of old people, there were 3 deaths out of ~750 known cases. Almost everyone dying so far has had another medical issue or been very old. Reports now say that many people testing positive have no symptoms at all and aren't getting sick. There have been zero deaths of children so far, which is unlike the flu. The youngest death was in his mid 30s.
Everyone should chill. Visit with your parents or compromised friends on FaceTime for a few weeks. Wash your hands. Don't go to work sick. If you're pregnant take extra precautions. Otherwise live your normal life.
Actually it's 6 out of 705. [0][1] May seem like a small difference, but a 0.8% chance of dying is 8x more than the flu.
Never mind the fact that the data out of China, Italy, Japan and Iran is all trending around the 2-3% CFR calculated and published in multiple peer reviewed journals. [2][3]
(However, South Korea might be reason for hope.)
>or been very old
It bothers me immensely when people mention it's "just old people". I'm not sure why I should "chill" about my parents having an 8% chance of dying if they contract this. [3]
[0] https://bnonews.com/index.php/2020/02/the-latest-coronavirus...
[1] https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
[2] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2762130
[3] http://weekly.chinacdc.cn/en/article/id/e53946e2-c6c4-41e9-9...
There's a good chance being confined to a cabin in a cruise ship and acquiring COVID-19 is more detrimental to someone than if they had a community acquired infection going about their normal life.
Being restricted like that implies they're getting significantly less exercise than they would normally, and the stress combined with lack of sun can do a number on someone's sleep cycle. That in turn can influence cognition, especially in the elderly, and I imagine increases the chances of being dehydrated/etc...
It's like being in a hospital, which tends to do a number on most people, but without supportive around the clock care.
I agree with not fomenting panic. However, "had another medical issue" means diabetes, which alone covers 11% of the US population, and has so far been associated with a mortality rate of about 8%. This likely includes at least one family member in more or less every US family.
It's entirely reasonable to view that as a compelling reason to avoid things like major conferences with significant inter- and trans-national mass transit.
It's still quite scary to see how diabetics have a very high risk with the virus. Luckily the treatment I get with my closed loop gives me an easy access to excellent control.
People from the cruise ship are still in the process of dieing. 2 more deaths occured today.
The number of recovered cases from the cruise ship is low, so naive inference on death rate so far is misleading.
[0]https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/02/here-is-w...
Second, there have deaths of people in there 20's a casual google search of 'youngest death coronavirus' yields that information as the first result.
And if you believe every young death (or every death) in Hubei province is being publicized, you haven't been paying attention.
I do agree that it's important not to panic, but we absolutely should be taking social distancing measures to reduce the r0.
tl;dr- "directing them to coordinate all statements and public appearances with the office of Vice President Mike Pence"
> AP FACT CHECK: Democrats distort coronavirus readiness
> Democratic presidential contenders are describing the federal infectious-disease bureaucracy as rudderless and ill-prepared for the coronavirus threat because of budget cuts and ham-handed leadership by President Donald Trump. That’s a distorted picture. For starters, Trump hasn’t succeeded in cutting the budget.
> He’s proposed cuts but Congress ignored him and increased financing instead. The National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention aren’t suffering from budget cuts that never took effect.
However he did indeed cut the people tasked to deal with pandemics.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/31/coronavirus-china-trump...
> But other White House efforts included reducing $15 billion in national health spending and cutting the global disease-fighting operational budgets of the CDC, NSC, DHS, and HHS. And the government’s $30 million Complex Crises Fund was eliminated.
> In May 2018, Trump ordered the NSC’s entire global health security unit shut down, calling for reassignment of Rear Adm. Timothy Ziemer and dissolution of his team inside the agency. The month before, then-White House National Security Advisor John Bolton pressured Ziemer’s DHS counterpart, Tom Bossert, to resign along with his team. Neither the NSC nor DHS epidemic teams have been replaced. The global health section of the CDC was so drastically cut in 2018 that much of its staff was laid off and the number of countries it was working in was reduced from 49 to merely 10.
Without devolving into an inevitable political shouting match, what would the purpose of that move be?
Although, that's traditional thinking, and this president is anything but traditional. So maybe you're right.
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/485025-ap-fact-checkers-f...
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/31/coronavirus-china-trump...
To satisfy it, the government has to show that it has a compelling state interest and that their solution is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.
Curfews for public safety after natural disasters like fires and floods, or to prevent spread of disease, or in times of extreme civil unrest like riots have been found to meet the strict scrutiny standard.
Since a ban on large gatherings is less of an imposition on your freedom of assembly than a curfew, I'd expect that it would be allowed.
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you can falsely yell “active shooter” in a crowded theater.
Freedom to bear arms doesn’t mean you’re allowed to own nuclear weapon or a surface to air missile battery.
Freedom of assembly doesn’t mean you can go where you want, when you want.
Other needs and limits can preempt these “rights” so they’re not really right at all.
I hope I don't sound critical of this. I'm not. I'm in favor of empowering public health departments, with accountability and oversight and judicial review, to do what is needed to prevent massive tragedy. I'm just putting it bluntly: our case law on this topic is reasonably well-settled, and one-sided, as pertains to epidemics. (Now, as pertains to vaccinating...)
I see that Switzerland has imposed a ban on gathering of 1000 or more in response to COVID19 - maybe other countries should consider doing the same?