Public Transit Emergency Preparedness Against Ebola and Other Infectious Diseases: Legal Issues (2017) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 20-27
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 20... ...
20 South Korea responded to the outbreak by enforcing quarantine and isolation policies for people exposed MERS-CoV, and by implementing social distancing measures. Over the course of the outbreak, South Korea quarantined more than 16,000 people.173 The government passed tough enforcement measures, setting a maximum sentence of 2 years in prison and $18,000 in fines for individuals who failed to comply with quarantine orders.174 To reduce opportunities for viral transmission, educational authorities closed 2,474 schools, including 22 universities.175 This decision was controversial; the schools were later reopened after international and South Korean public health experts reported that the virus was not spreading in schools.176 As the outbreak continued, South Korean health authorities discovered that the virus had spread primarily through Samsung Medical Center, one of the country's leading hospitals, where a MERS patient infected 80 of his visitors and fellow patients.177 While educational and health officials imposed social distancing measures by closing schools and limiting hospital admissions, individuals voluntarily limited their exposure to other people.
|
From page 21... ...
21 screenings that occur in transportation settings for health and communicable disease concerns. These screenings, which are also nonintrusive,186 can occur at air, sea, and land entries.
|
From page 22... ...
22 of areas that are deemed not safe.195 In effect, these powers can control intrastate movement. Most states' broad grant of powers include the ability to suspend rules, statutes, or regulations.196 Furthermore, during a declared state of emergency/PHE, most states give the governor the power to respond as "necessary to promote and secure the safety and protection of the civilian population."197 This may include requiring individuals to "submit to medical examination or testing."198 Such powers likely encompass noninvasive measures, such as checkpoints for screening, at POEs into the state or at public transportation hubs.
|
From page 23... ...
23 Inspection statutes such as this one may, in effect, provide the authority for screening during an IDO.
|
From page 24... ...
24 (1) Proposed New CDC Rules for Domestic and Foreign Quarantine Regulations220 As of August 2016, HHS and the CDC announced a proposed rulemaking to amend current interstate and foreign quarantine regulations.
|
From page 25... ...
25 Federal agencies were also navigating the novelty of the situation and lack of clear guidance, and the need for greater awareness of policies and procedures, which led to the delayed placement of Speaker on the No Fly List.233 Even so, a nationwide border alert was placed on Speaker during his travels through other means, though a border patrol agent let Speaker cross back into the United States without notice.234 The Speaker incident resulted in the creation of the DNB list, which places federal air travel restrictions on people who have communicable diseases that constitute public health threats.235 People on the list cannot be issued boarding passes from airlines.236 The list provides a centralized mechanism to control the spread of public health threats that does not rely on other lists or reporting mechanisms, and provides clear guidance to federal agencies regarding their roles in controlling the spread of a communicable disease, at least in one mode of interstate travel.
|
From page 26... ...
26 exists within states, it would likely be difficult to successfully use the information to prescreen transit passengers on a large scale. In addition, the use of such information routinely may raise privacy concerns or potential conflicts with state and federal privacy laws, such as the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act.244 Prescreening powers for both governors and state health officials remain largely implied.
|
From page 27... ...
27 When conducted for a PHE or IDO, screening and prescreening measures may raise concerns about civil liberties; however, the special governmental need in preventing terrorism and promoting safety and security will often outweigh these concerns.254 As long as the screenings are reasonable and serve a compelling government interest, courts are reluctant to deny them.255 Nonetheless, such measures will likely be unpopular. Using methods that are the least invasive will provide greater cooperation and present fewer challenges.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.