Replies

I do remember the section on public health law back in my undergraduate days (some punk named Pasteur was sitting next to me). It was a bit of an eye-opener. Most of this stuff dates back to the Yellow Fever / Typhoid days and yes, the laws necessary to lock people up are very much on the books. And upheld through the Supreme Court.

That said, it was a different age back then and for slow-moving diseases such as typhoid or cholera it was, in the absence of better medical knowledge, a reasonably effective praxis. Not so for such diseases as Ebola or, as JRandom pointed out, Spanish Flu. There absolutely were isolation wards and quarantine for the latter in 1919, and it didn't help.

The problem is that such diseases tend to overwhelm the machinery intended to contain them. Who guards the guardians? When the keepers are sick themselves, who mans the guard posts and the barricades?

I suggest that as a ploy for locking up political opponents, this will be after the damage is done and far too late to have the desired effect. Great fantasy fare, but I don't think it's likely to go down that way. Just my $0.02.

The isolation wards and quarantine were local, and not federal.

The feds don't have the authority to do that, regardless of what leftist journalists think.

And yes, if it's a plot by those in power, it isn't well thought out. Like most government actions.

They (governments in general) don't have a great win/loss record on anything but killing people.

/johnny

The problem is that such diseases tend to overwhelm the machinery intended to contain them. Who guards the guardians? When the keepers are sick themselves, who mans the guard posts and the barricades?

You're right - medical personal would be at high risk in the early stages of a breakout.