Congrats, Jeremy! Bhattacharya -- he of the infamous Great Barrington Declaration -- is learning it's a lot harder to make decisions based on limited information/data than it is to be a Monday Morning Quarterback. I am sure Dr. Fauci and others are grinning broadly.
This is exactly the kind of case that tests whether a society can balance legitimate public health authority with civil liberties in a rational and proportionate way.
Andes hantavirus is a serious disease with documented human-to-human transmission, so quarantine authority is not inherently unreasonable. At the same time, in a liberal society, the justification for coercive confinement should become stronger as restrictions become more intrusive, especially when informed and cooperative individuals are willing to complete monitored home quarantine.
If asymptomatic individuals can safely quarantine at home without meaningful public risk, then the government should be able to clearly explain why involuntary institutional confinement is medically necessary rather than merely administratively preferable.
Cases like this resist simplistic ideological framing, and public trust depends in part on acknowledging that complexity.
When does her right to “go home” rise above my right not to be exposed to a deadly virus? Why should anyone trust that those exposed are going to stay away from grocery stores, pharmacies, or my doctor’s office? I have already been put on alert that a measles patient visited my doctor and local pharmacy and grocery store this year, so yes, it can happen to you. I am all for a mandatory quarantine. Even if it was for myself.
As usual, it's the waffling that is so damaging. Shows the incompetence of those in decision-making positions. The current policy is more to rescue the image of the HHS/CDC than for the patient's or public's safety.
Leaving the administration’s hypocrisies and ironies aside, I started to think about what I would do in such a situation. And there is no question that I would stay at the NQU given the incubation period. While I trust that home quarantine is perfectly safe, I would want to be around the world’s experts if I were to develop the disease.
Wow, the legal implications! This is a remarkable convergence of the federal vacancies reform act and a live individual liberty deprivation. I just looked up the statutory law governing quarantine orders and have endless medicine based questions. But I think it’s clear that Bhattacharya purported to sign a binding quarantine order — one that is physically confining a person against her will — as “Senior Official Carrying out the Delegable Duties of the CDC Director.” The framing is legally incoherent: the exercise of coercive quarantine authority over an individual is not a delegable ministerial function, it is the exercise of the full sovereign power of the CDC director. I bet a challenge to the order based on Bhattacharya’s unlawful authority would be successful, and a court would find the order void as a threshold matter. I knew the administration’s vacancies maneuvering would blow up in their faces, I just never predicted it would be a hantavirus quarantine order.
Freedumb gonna freedumb. This should be defeated, but in the US, you can be your own public health. This individual is wrong, despite her credentials, and is exactly representative of why the US is in so much trouble. Argh. 8 week incubation for hantavirus.:((
The CDC initially said they'd send her home after 72h in Omaha, via private charter, so as to not expose others, and to maximize our national resources. Home quarantine is indeed safe and has plenty of advantages.
My mom, who went to public health school in Michigan, shared this with me. I agree with her reasoning:
While this person sounds like she would be responsible, I personally think it is a bad idea to let anyone leave until the quarantine period is over. If they let one person leave then others who may not act responsibly will also need to be allowed to leave. This virus has a long incubation period. The fact she is negative doesn’t mean she won’t get symptomatic.
Admittedly having no expertise in any of the matters discussed here so far, I look at our recent global experience with Covid19 [2019 was 7 + years ago]. Contagion and death were a serious threat no matter the degree of isolation (or, presumed isolation).
Are we sure that the Nebraska Quarantine Facility is safe from the contagion it is designed to prevent? I am "of two minds" about whether the contesting woman should be allowed to go to her home and be in isolation there, or be forced to be in a reputedly impermeable quarantine residence (maybe of more than "of two minds").
Congrats, Jeremy! Bhattacharya -- he of the infamous Great Barrington Declaration -- is learning it's a lot harder to make decisions based on limited information/data than it is to be a Monday Morning Quarterback. I am sure Dr. Fauci and others are grinning broadly.
This is exactly the kind of case that tests whether a society can balance legitimate public health authority with civil liberties in a rational and proportionate way.
Andes hantavirus is a serious disease with documented human-to-human transmission, so quarantine authority is not inherently unreasonable. At the same time, in a liberal society, the justification for coercive confinement should become stronger as restrictions become more intrusive, especially when informed and cooperative individuals are willing to complete monitored home quarantine.
If asymptomatic individuals can safely quarantine at home without meaningful public risk, then the government should be able to clearly explain why involuntary institutional confinement is medically necessary rather than merely administratively preferable.
Cases like this resist simplistic ideological framing, and public trust depends in part on acknowledging that complexity.
When does her right to “go home” rise above my right not to be exposed to a deadly virus? Why should anyone trust that those exposed are going to stay away from grocery stores, pharmacies, or my doctor’s office? I have already been put on alert that a measles patient visited my doctor and local pharmacy and grocery store this year, so yes, it can happen to you. I am all for a mandatory quarantine. Even if it was for myself.
You’re raising good points. I’ll address them in the follow up piece.
As usual, it's the waffling that is so damaging. Shows the incompetence of those in decision-making positions. The current policy is more to rescue the image of the HHS/CDC than for the patient's or public's safety.
Leaving the administration’s hypocrisies and ironies aside, I started to think about what I would do in such a situation. And there is no question that I would stay at the NQU given the incubation period. While I trust that home quarantine is perfectly safe, I would want to be around the world’s experts if I were to develop the disease.
Wow, the legal implications! This is a remarkable convergence of the federal vacancies reform act and a live individual liberty deprivation. I just looked up the statutory law governing quarantine orders and have endless medicine based questions. But I think it’s clear that Bhattacharya purported to sign a binding quarantine order — one that is physically confining a person against her will — as “Senior Official Carrying out the Delegable Duties of the CDC Director.” The framing is legally incoherent: the exercise of coercive quarantine authority over an individual is not a delegable ministerial function, it is the exercise of the full sovereign power of the CDC director. I bet a challenge to the order based on Bhattacharya’s unlawful authority would be successful, and a court would find the order void as a threshold matter. I knew the administration’s vacancies maneuvering would blow up in their faces, I just never predicted it would be a hantavirus quarantine order.
Freedumb gonna freedumb. This should be defeated, but in the US, you can be your own public health. This individual is wrong, despite her credentials, and is exactly representative of why the US is in so much trouble. Argh. 8 week incubation for hantavirus.:((
The CDC initially said they'd send her home after 72h in Omaha, via private charter, so as to not expose others, and to maximize our national resources. Home quarantine is indeed safe and has plenty of advantages.
Also, she's negative so far, so this bodes well.
she actually has some good points. And by the CDC’s own order, which I reviewed, the CDC thinks she poses no risk.
My mom, who went to public health school in Michigan, shared this with me. I agree with her reasoning:
While this person sounds like she would be responsible, I personally think it is a bad idea to let anyone leave until the quarantine period is over. If they let one person leave then others who may not act responsibly will also need to be allowed to leave. This virus has a long incubation period. The fact she is negative doesn’t mean she won’t get symptomatic.
Thank you for this concerning posting. Not an easy issue!! So appreciate you keeping us up on the latest news.
Admittedly having no expertise in any of the matters discussed here so far, I look at our recent global experience with Covid19 [2019 was 7 + years ago]. Contagion and death were a serious threat no matter the degree of isolation (or, presumed isolation).
Are we sure that the Nebraska Quarantine Facility is safe from the contagion it is designed to prevent? I am "of two minds" about whether the contesting woman should be allowed to go to her home and be in isolation there, or be forced to be in a reputedly impermeable quarantine residence (maybe of more than "of two minds").