Donate SIGN UP

How Much Force Is Acceptable If Any

Avatar Image
retrocop | 13:25 Mon 10th Feb 2020 | News
36 Answers

The Coronavirus is now described as an imminent threat to the public. Over night we have four more 'confirmed positive' cases doubling the figure to eight in the UK.
One male,casevaced from China is threatening to abscond from quarantine before the fourteen day Quarantine period is over (Thursday) despite signing a condition prior to boarding the flight that he would remain in quarantine.
Although NOT confirmed as a carrier how much force do you think is necessary to ensure this man can be prevented from absconding and are the NHS staff expected to keep him under lock and key?

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/coronavirus-serious-imminent-threat-british-public-health-secretary-071800398.html









https://uk.news.yahoo.com/coronavirus-serious-imminent-threat-british-public-health-secretary-071800398.html
Gravatar

Answers

21 to 36 of 36rss feed

First Previous 1 2

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by retrocop. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Jeez geezer, don’t give them ideas.
In practice they'd need to develop their own virus, one with no known antidote, so not a likely scenario.
The Canadians are quarantining approximately 500 recent visitors to Wuhan at a large air-force base. Now I don't know how physically strict the personnel are enforcing the quarantine, but I imagine it would be much more difficult to "escape" from this base than it would be to simply stroll away from a hospital in the middle of a city.
Had a quick look through the answers. They talked him into staying- he's due out on thursday anyway. I believe there is now something in place to keep people in quarantine.
Wish they'd hurry up and find a vaccine.
// The Canadians are quarantining ,,,,,,//
they have a long history of enforcing and confining people for TB tmt, so the law would already be in place

AND

case no 9 is a nurse in a GP surgery in Brighton and so the cat is well and truly out of the bag
( if she were an angel and turning up for work while ill then she cd infect a few thousand wivvart prob)
Use whatever force is necessary, yes shoot them if you have to.

We should never have flown them home (has anyone seen who is paying for this as I doubt many of them are UK tax payers) but as we did then they should have to abide by our rules - or go back to China and abide by theirs.

Going round infecting people because you want t be 'free' is not acceptable. Especially when you didnt want to live in the country in the first place.
oops sozza case no 9 was at Contamines sans joio
golly sounds like a name out of Nostradamus

so presumably he was already in the system

incunation period is quite long - you can estimate it from the day the fella flew from SIngapore and the first case occurred in COntamines - 10 d I think
// We should never have flown them home //

this is MUCH more contentious surprisingly
freedom to pass and repass into a country IS guaranteed unless limited by legal process by er
the Magna Carta. Yup 1215 if you dont - it is called exile
Exile is bad very bad and King John agreed not to do it. [ Kinda explains why Trump has such difficulty with his executive order against immigration into the land of the free by Muslims]
Legal process should automatically bar possible epidemic carriers.
Exile should be fine too as long as the evidence that they don't deserve to be here is available.
spicey
how kind of you to refer to Nice Fall girl Dr Ryan who did NOT alter the ebola temperature chart. I attended her GMC hearing where I walked in and heard the counsel say as I entered
" and so what should have happened when they realised?"
" shoulda gone to Northwick Park"
" so it was nothing to do with Dr Ryan?"
"No" and they didnt go to Northwick Park - No

it was later shown Dr R had not altered the forms that someone had leaked to the press that she had ....and the forms had not misled the authorities because the alteration had been pointed out before they left the airport. The failing and the case of Ebola were therefore conclusively found to lie with faults with the system supervised by the PHLS who had ignored the info that they had had at the time.

I said to her parents: I think she is off the hook isnt she?
and the mother said - we have been told they wont give up - the nurse got screwed.

so who had leaked the wrong message to the press and was it to minimise their own liability ? I cant tell you as they are STILL in post - but keeping a very low profile this time round. But which organisation would benefit from someone else taking the heat - cd it be an organisation beginning with P? - orgs and hospital are NOT answerable to the GMC only scapegoats oops doctors I mean

this was the case where a voice from the audience said - "I am not giving evidence to the GMC because I am facing criminal charges"....and Dr Ryan wasnt facing charges. So I thought erm they have got the wrong person havent they? The GMC thought not

this is also the case where Dr Gent of the PHLS said - if you find her guilty ( which they did) no one will ever talk to PHLS again. ( very important for contact tracing and they want the TROOF and not gottle of geer gottle of geer. They are keeping their mouths shut see so they say "gottle" ) - specifically when Dr Gent or one of his cohorts asks - have you been to China Hubei - he does NOT want the answer "what bay? never heard of it, Doc" if you in fact have

and it has all been Very Different this time round.

no volunteers - no PHLS - quarantine centres instead,
no leaks to the press ,no fingerpointing at medical personnel and nurses - Nurse Doo Dah got suspended for 6 m as well - and it was made clear to us that it would be 'unfair' if Dr R didnt get 6 monf suspension.

so yes as you can see
do I remember the case of Dr Ryan ?
yes I do - very well. I was there.

oh, the glasgow case rang up cas in Glasgie and said she had a high temp and was an Ebola contact and was told to hop on the bus and come in and see them! more a learning experience for that one!
oo er Mrs that has done it
testing started at HMP Bullingdon
The following is a tried and tested statement which has been used many times in HMP.

2.2. The use of force will be justified, and therefore lawful, only:
• If it is reasonable in the circumstances
• If it is necessary
• If no more force than is necessary is used
• If it is proportionate to the seriousness of the circumstances
for those people quarantined in NHS hospitals though, the question will be who administers the force? You can declare it legal but am not sure there is a way to make clinical staff do it?
Question Author
It would appear that the police have been now empowered to carry out the enforcement,using no more force than necessary, and can restrain with handcuffs if needed.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7986189/Health-Secretary-Matt-Hancock-warns-coronavirus-imminent-threat-British-public.html

21 to 36 of 36rss feed

First Previous 1 2

Do you know the answer?

How Much Force Is Acceptable If Any

Answer Question >>

Related Questions