national

Japan speeds up new virus measures; infected carriers to be barred entry

72 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2020 AFP

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

72 Comments
Login to comment

No legal obligation to force a Fine...their choice.

No legal obligation to allow them to board the flight from China either. Should have refused to let them board!

23 ( +25 / -2 )

"..... we will refuse infected individuals entry to Japan," Abe said."

Too little (maybe), but definitely too late.

You already got the "carriers" in Japan, now it's just a question how fast and how much this virus will spread.

15 ( +18 / -3 )

Should have read

No legal obligation to take a test. Fine by me.

no obligation to allow them to board in the first place.

15 ( +16 / -1 )

The cases of apparent person-to-person transmission, as well as infection without symptoms, have sparked increased criticism of the government's handling of the crisis, particularly its minimal quarantine measures for evacuees from Wuhan.

Unlike other countries, which are opting to isolate returning citizens for between 72 hours and two weeks, Japan has asked evacuees to "self-quarantine".

Yeah...dropped a ball on that one big time

Japanese officials say there is no legal basis for them to forcibly isolate people who have not tested positive for the virus -- and that will not change with the implementation of the new rules from Saturday.

Then handle it similar to the Americans...."strongly urge" all evacuees to spend a week or two at a secure, isolated location, be it a military base or otherwise....and have no issue with "forcible isolation ". Think outside the square for once.

14 ( +15 / -1 )

There was also outrage after it emerged that two people on the first evacuation flight from Wuhan initially refused to be tested for the virus, and were allowed to return home after being advised to avoid public transport and monitor their health.

>

4 ( +5 / -1 )

The above is an absolute disgrace.

16 ( +16 / -0 )

The government has said it cannot force people to take the test, and on Thursday night health ministry officials said the two individuals had now changed their minds and would take the test.

There, you see. Sometimes all you need to do is let their conscience (or the vulnerability of Japanese to social pressure, your choice) time to work. The need to subvert the legal system has been averted.

-14 ( +4 / -18 )

So, the gov has the right to quarantine infected people but has no means to test them if they choose not to get tested... I wander if any has opposed to the breathalyzer here.

How accurate are the numbers of patients here? I heard there are 2 cases in Toyohashi, and they are not on the official tally. They may be just rumors or not certified by the jgov yet. I don't think we should panic but I would like a bit of advance notice if I need to keep the kids home.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The horses have bolted, did you say?

Hmmm.... We'd better shut the stable doors and lock them securely.

10 ( +12 / -2 )

Japan will fast-track new rules to limit the spread of a coronavirus strain...

Well done GOJ. You jumped out of the plane without a parachute and are now knitting one on the way down. Should have thought of that before voluntarily repatriating your citizens without the legal authority in place to mandate adequate quarantine for them.

17 ( +19 / -2 )

I only hope nobody dies because of the government's lack of foresight and initiative here...

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Other governments (Germany for example) fly out only people who agree to be quarantined and tested. If you don't agree, you stay in China. Simple, really.

26 ( +26 / -0 )

I'm sure the families of the two who refused to be tested smack both of them upside their heads and told them to get it done!

10 ( +10 / -0 )

When it rains...it pours! People emptied-out mask and sanitizer shelves from most stores. Talk about panic...!

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Unlike other countries, which are opting to isolate returning citizens for between 72 hours and two weeks, Japan has asked evacuees to "self-quarantine".

Yet the government has provided lodging for those who were brought back from Wuhan.

Also "Self-Quarantine!" This is just begging for the virus to spread!

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Maybe someone might want to inspect Chinatown in Yokohama. Just saying.

-10 ( +3 / -13 )

*The government has said it cannot force people to take the test, and on Thursday night health ministry officials said the two individuals had now changed their minds and would take the test.*

There, you see. Sometimes all you need to do is let their conscience (or the vulnerability of Japanese to social pressure, your choice) time to work. The need to subvert the legal system has been averted."

Yeah...except thats a bit behind the curve isn,t it...those 2 were just let loose for a couple of days with the potential to come into contact and possibly infect a number of  others ( if they were to be carriers ) ,....mind boggling...... in a public health emergency of this scale there should no room for errors of this magnitude by the decision makers.

10 ( +11 / -1 )

I'm sure the families of the two who refused to be tested smack both of them upside their heads and told them to get it done!

Very likely.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

There, you see.

No we don't. Again you are not understanding things correctly. The government does not need to touch the legal system whatsoever, you are coming up with this non sense in order to defend Japan's slow response to the spread of the virus. Japan only needs to decide that the Japanese citizens evacuated from heavily infected regions in China need to stay in quarantine and/or test for their infection. Those people are FREE to refuse to do that but then they need to stay in China. Other countries are applying the same policy.

is let their conscience (or the vulnerability of Japanese to social pressure, your choice) time to work

Excuse me? What actually happened is that those idiots realized how arrogant and selfish they are. What kind of sick logic can push people to refuse to take a health test after they returned from a heavily infected area? It boggles the mind.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Japanese officials say there is no legal basis for them to forcibly isolate people 

Yet the country does that on a regular basis on different occasions.... Typical, saying a lie that fits best the situation to save face,

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Wow!

Whatever will the Japanese politicos do next?

Ban flights from China?

Thats a tough one ne....

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Abe and his cronies screw up once again...So what happened to the 2 that refused to be tested..

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Yesterday morning it was 5 cases, the spread of the virus in the country, today its " where 14 cases have been identified so far", it is the "have been identified SO FAR, that worries me. Way to go Abe and your merry men. For the Japanese officials who do not understand or read the Constitution please take a look at Article 13 as was posted yesterday by a fellow reader. It seems to be pretty cut and dry that even a donkey can understand it. refer to: Japanese officials say there is no legal basis for them to forcibly isolate people who have not tested positive for the virus -- and that will not change with the implementation of the new rules from Saturday. Article 13 clearly states there is legal basis to protect the welfare of the people in Japan. The WHO has finally declared this officially an worldwide pandemic, despite heavy pressure from China for them not to proceed. Yea the leader from the WHO is totally bought and paid for by China had it not been for the US to put added pressure to get them to announce the official declaration. Better late than never to save their own skins.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@daito_hakToday 02:12 pm JST

That's why people with weak legal educations can be a problem.

That other countries are doing it may not be that they are correct. At best you can say this is practice. But it may be an illegal practice or one that would have long term effects.

Read again what I said concerning the use of private law - I know you read it. You do not have that poor reading comprehension.

Try and understand that you are resetting entire boundaries of what people can "volunteer" or "agree" to and under what pressures.

Try and understand those boundaries are placed there in the first place to protect the weak.

Try and understand law is optimized for one hundred million people over many, many cases, not a few over one case.

And I DID forget to say one thing there, so I'll add it here. One more problem of using Private Law to handle this is - what happens when some decide to break their contracts? Now that you've used the pretense of using private law, you can't use public law authority to enforce it. What is the usual, legal remedy for violations of contractual obligations - oh yeah, year long court battles. That'll work (sarcasm).

If you use direct action, you are setting a nice precedent for the use of force to resolve private law issues (which kind of defeats the purpose of private law if we settle everything with muscle). The use of force without public law authority is a crime.

What actually happened is that those idiots realized how arrogant and selfish they are.

How this contradicts "conscience" is unclear.

@daito_hakToday 02:16 pm JST

Yet the country does that on a regular basis on different occasions.... Typical, saying a lie that fits best the situation to save face,

I'll really like to know which concrete cases you are thinking of, but let's say it's true. I assume you are thinking those "regular basis on different occasions" is a bad thing. Well, then let's not add one more case to the list, correct?

-11 ( +1 / -12 )

Japan speeds up new virus measures; infected carriers to be barred entry

Too little too late.

Unlike other countries, which are opting to isolate returning citizens for between 72 hours and two weeks, Japan has asked evacuees to "self-quarantine".

Yeah sure. That'll work. Pfff

The announcement comes with concern growing in Japan about the spread of the virus in the country, where 14 cases have been identified so far.

Good job Abe! Japan now is second after China in number of cases, my bet is we will see a spike in cases. Time will tell.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

@rgcivilian1Today 02:33 pm JST

The 2nd half of Article 13 is the legal basis for all statutes that in some way infringe on freedoms, starting from the criminal law and spreading out to the various punishments in administrative law statutes to the authorizations for the use of coercions by police and other agencies. It does not mean they do not need a statutory basis to act.

It's actually amazing and hypocritical really. In most cases, even when there is a statutory basis (like the row over passports), the average JapanToday guy tells the Japanese government NOT to apply it to their pet case. Today, the Japanese government concedes it has no statutory basis, and the average JapanToday guy is all "Who cares! Violate Rights! Public Health! RAWR!"

And usually, they quote the first half of Article 13. But when it comes to their pet case, all their principles go out the window.

-10 ( +3 / -13 )

Aly RustomToday  02:49 pm JST

Good job Abe! Japan now is second after China in number of cases, my bet is we will see a spike in cases. Time will tell.

Japan is a relatively big country. It has a lot of contact with China. Those two chubs did not have time to infect anyone. And Thailand was 14 yesterday, so it would Japan is more like 3rd rather than 2nd :)

-13 ( +1 / -14 )

New Zealand is evacuating people from China and reportedly has no plans to screen anyone for the virus. I’d say based on that, Japan hasn’t done everything right but certainly not the worst performing on the issue.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Japan is a relatively big country.

Its also a very crowded country.

It has a lot of contact with China.

Yes but now Wuhan is in lock down with China trying to contain this.

those two chubs did not have time to infect anyone.

The minute they took a train, stood at a urinal, went to a convenience store etc. they had the time. They had plenty of time.

And Thailand was 14 yesterday, so it would Japan is more like 3rd rather than 2nd :)

Yay!!

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Read again what I said concerning the use of private law - I know you read it. You do not have that poor reading comprehension.

I don't but you have a very poor English writing which makes it difficult to read your posts like the one above. You are mixing different notions in a completely unstructured way and so you totally failed to provide any clearly articulated answer to my point.

> That other countries are doing it may not be that they are correct. At best you can say this is practice. But it may be an illegal practice or one that would have long term effects.

What illegality are you talking about? English is not Japanese, you have to construct your sentences with clear subjects. What long terms effects are those? What are even the evidences for you to suggest that there is any of them? You have none, zero.

Well, then let's not add one more case to the list, correct?

No you missed my point. My point is that Japan is using an excuse to just hide its incompetence in dealing with the situation but this is shameful hypocrisy since the excuse it says is what the country does regularly.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

My point is that Japan is using an excuse to just hide its incompetence in dealing with the situation but this is shameful hypocrisy since the excuse it says is what the country does regularly.

good point daito!

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@daito_hakToday  03:13 pm JST

First, English is my first language. Second, before complaining about other people's poor writing, at least consider the possibility it may be your poor reading comprehension. Third, even if it is my poor English, there is nothing either of us can do about it within the timespan of this conversation except try harder to communicate.

Based on your response, I am assuming that you have at least understood the Public Law section of my previous response, so that leaves Private Law.

The long term effects are those on Law. You may remember the need for law to be consistent. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Once you have decided on something, we will all have to live with it in another situation.

Your argument is, if I understand it correctly, to say it is OK if they "agree". This is also the pretense by Britain. I am not sure exactly what combination of public and/or private law the other nations used, so I will evaluate the one I have at least a little detail on.

There are at least three problems with this idea.

The first one is, it makes "two weeks deprivation of liberty" something someone can agree to in private law. And don't mince words - quarantine is deprivation of liberty. Do you want that to be the policy in the future?

(We'll do the other two once we get this one communicated).

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

@N30N0M3NToday  03:52 pm JST

It is literally true. Japan is the 11th most populous country (which was what I was concentrating on) but even in area it is 61st out of 194th.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

As the Host of 2020 Olympics just months away, it's very irresponsible of Japan not to isolate the evacuees from Wuhan. Being known as a strict & inflexible culture, Japan really picks the wrong time to be "relaxed & flexible", And what's the matter with those 2 people who initially denied to be tested? This is not the time to be careless & stubborn.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Maybe someone might want to inspect Chinatown in Yokohama. Just saying.

"Just saying" usually means you want to share a controversial truth and just shrug it off.

Given that the bulk of Chinese visitors are going to be crowded at key Japanese tourist sites, such as Kyoto, your opinion is really quite wrong, while retaining its implied offensiveness.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Japanese officials say there is no legal basis for them to forcibly isolate people

They could at least have offered them the possibility. Sure that will have costed money but sending people to fend for themselves with most likely a bunch of them having no other choice but to get in contact with other people in order to provide oneself food.

allowing the forcible hospitalization of those infected and giving immigration authorities the power to prevent people with the virus from entering the country

But they can not know who is infected or not, so ...

Kind of look like they are taking cosmetic measure to look good but do not want to be bothered with dealing with the problem and its cost.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Flute Today  04:11 pm JST

They could at least have offered them the possibility.

The possibility was offered. All but two have agreed and are now in a certain hotel (those that haven't been hospitalized, that is).

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

"Just saying" usually means you want to share a controversial truth and just shrug it off.

Exactly. Except you're being generous in using the word "truth".

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

An excellent discussion on the virus. I found it very informative.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uzoxBUD6jI

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Kazuaki Shimazaki,

The possibility was offered. All but two have agreed and are now in a certain hotel (those that haven't been hospitalized, that is).

Your sources ?

Mine :

https://japantoday.com/category/national/5-Japanese-evacuees-from-Wuhan-taken-to-hospital-2-have-pneumonia

Health officials said that evacuees will be sent home on chartered buses to keep them from using public transportation and stay home for about two weeks until their virus test results are out, though it's not legally binding. Others who need to travel long distance home are asked to stay at designated hotels.

So only the one not living in Tokyo were asked to. And no trace of how they need will be provided.

https://japantoday.com/category/national/3-Japanese-returnees-from-Wuhan-test-positive-for-new-coronavirus

Suga said the government is also considering using public facilities, including the National Police Academy, to house the returnees.

So no isolated place.

In the first group of returnees, all but two people agreed to be tested for the virus.

That just say, they refused to be tested not that they refused to be quarantined.

Sure it can also be seen not as bad management but as a way to try to get agreement for more coercive law. I do not think Japan lack law in that regard or Japanese are less mindful than people in other countries which managed to have quarantine.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@Kazuaki ShimazakiToday 02:52 pm JST

The 2nd half of Article 13 is the legal basis for all statutes that in some way infringe on freedoms, starting from the criminal law and spreading out to the various punishments in administrative law statutes to the authorizations for the use of coercions by police and other agencies. It does not mean they do not need a statutory basis to act.

Today, the Japanese government concedes it has no statutory basis, and the average JapanToday guy is all "Who cares! Violate Rights! Public Health! RAWR!"

And usually, they quote the first half of Article 13. But when it comes to their pet case, all their principles go out the window.

First of all thank you for the response and concur with your input regarding the avg JapanToday guy. Here is Article 13. All of the people shall be respected as individuals. Their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness shall, to the extent that it does not interfere with the public welfare, be the supreme consideration in legislation and in other governmental affairs.

A breakdown, 1. "All of the people shall be respected as individuals". Based on the overwhelming complaints about allowing the individuals back in without quarantine, was all on the Abe administration not the voice of the people. 2. Their (meaning everyone legal person in Japan) right to life, liberty and etc. ...that it does not interfere with the public welfare ( the coronavirus most definitely does interfere with the public welfare of the people and individual right under Article 13. The supreme legislation given that sovereignty was given to the WHO did declare this virus and pandemic one. So with this said I did not see any Japan Government official who voted in favor of proceeding with the repatriation process at the meet and greet, did anyone else? China well knew and aware of this virus outbreak probabilities as far back as late November but did nothing to warn the WHO. Question remains if China is intent on being a "PEACEFUL" means nation, why are they working with such a virus in the first place vs peaceful means. Perhaps just like the man made islets that were for research purposes only turned out to currently be militarized?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

How about the latest update, right in this article, which contains more updated information?

Of the 206 people who arrived on a first flight on Wednesday, 12 have been hospitalised, with all but two of the other passengers staying at a government-designated hotel in Chiba outside Tokyo.

BTW, here's the law as it now stands. Exactly 13 diseases are designated, by name - 6 in Group I (which includes Ebola) and 7 in Group II (including SARS and MERS). Compulsory quarantine is only authorized for these diseases. The executive's rights allow them to add diseases to other lists, for which certain measures are permitted but not compulsory quarantine.

With the legislation written so tightly, legally speaking should government officials exceed their authority they are as naked as a group of regular civilians trying to enforce a quarantine on their own initiative.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Question for Kazuaki Shimazaki:

If you were on one of these evacuation flights, and you felt perfectly healthy and showed no symptoms of the virus, would you accept the government's request that you voluntarily allow yourself to be quarantined at a government arranged facility upon repatriating, or would you refuse and insist on self-quarantining yourself at home or a place of your choosing? And what is your rationale for your choice?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

No point debating. Japan dropped the ball on this one by not forcefully (legal or not) quarantining those Japanese returning from a city where a deadly virus is rapidly spreading. Because of that we basically went from 4 infected to basically a 4 fold increase. And letting two just go home cause they 'didn't want to be tested.' Darwin award for the Japanese Government.

I'd advice any innocent bystander who gets infected to sue the government for negligence.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Public benefit in emergency should always take precedence over private law , there is obviously a glaring hole in Japanese legislation.

That said, it is also obvious that the officials in charge are not qualified to handle such matters.

Instead of applying disease related laws they could simply suspect them of drugs or anything similar that allows police to arrest one here for 10+ days with no charges .. simple choice, either you volunteer , or you get charged and stay locked until "suspicion cleared" , definitely should have done that to the two fools that refused examination.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Instead of applying disease related laws they could simply suspect them of drugs or anything similar that allows police to arrest one here for 10+ days with no charges .. simple choice, either you volunteer , or you get charged and stay locked until "suspicion cleared" , definitely should have done that to the two fools that refused examination.

This isn't Russia, thankfully. Fitting people up is a hallmark of corruption.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Kazuaki Shimazaki

With the legislation written so tightly, legally speaking should government officials exceed their authority they are as naked as a group of regular civilians trying to enforce a quarantine on their own initiative.

No, the government shouldn't have commenced the non-emergency voluntary evacuation BEFORE they had the authority to mandate a quarantine. The GOJ itself created this situation in which the correct action for the greatest good and public safety (quarantine) is not one that they have the legal authority to take. THIS is unbelievable incompetence and what everyone but you here is decrying. At a minimum, the GOJ should immediately cease repatriating any more citizens from Wuhan until they have taken the administrative steps to legalize the compulsory quarantine of individuals who have not tested positive for infection but are still within the virus' known incubation period.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Kazuaki Shimazaki

The same article say :

Unlike other countries, which are opting to isolate returning citizens for between 72 hours and two weeks, Japan has asked evacuees to "self-quarantine".

So they are still not offered the possibility to choose a proper quarantine. It is just staying in a hostel that do not explain how they need will be provided. Good that they offered the option for people living in Tokyo.

BTW, here's the law as it now stands.

No that is not. That does not even look like a law translation.

All the article I rode agree about that fact :

Japan has already decided to label the new virus a "designated infectious disease"

And according to that :

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/01/27/national/japan-designated-infectious-disease-system/

What kinds of steps does the one-year designation allow the government to take?

The designation gives the government legal power to take the same levels of precautions that can be implemented for Class 1 or Class 2 diseases.

For example, the government can legally order infected patients to be hospitalized and impose restrictions on their work activities to prevent further spread of a disease.

Medical costs for such patients are funded by the taxpayer.

So where does your statement :

The executive's rights allow them to add diseases to other lists, for which certain measures are permitted but not compulsory quarantine

come from.

And there is more than 1 law in the country. You should not underestimate Japan laws.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

USNinJapan2 Today 05:09 pm JST

No, the government shouldn't have commenced the non-emergency voluntary evacuation BEFORE they had the authority to mandate a quarantine.

Oh, that is definitely an arguable position though I will point out that said "authority" will have to be legislated, so it'll be a good long time before they can bring them back. Legally (if perhaps not politically), there is no problem with choosing this manuever, at least as far as I know.

THIS is unbelievable incompetence and what everyone but you here is decrying.

You will notice that I don't make comments against posts that just say "They should not have sent a plane" because like I said above, it is a perfectly arguable position.

I do make comments against posts that say "They should make them agree to ..." or "They should just force them into quarantine" or "They should just do whatever other countries are doing". And now we are sinking to Alex Einz's "Accuse them of crimes you know they didn't commit just to put them in detention."

The reason? Legality (and I've gone to much bigger posts on the subject so I won't repeat here).

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

USNinJapan2Today 04:54 pm JST

If you were on one of these evacuation flights, and you felt perfectly healthy and showed no symptoms of the virus, would you accept the government's request that you voluntarily allow yourself to be quarantined at a government arranged facility upon repatriating, or would you refuse and insist on self-quarantining yourself at home or a place of your choosing? And what is your rationale for your choice?

I'd like to think I'll accept the request. I have a conscience and two weeks from work seems like a pleasant bonus. And remember, all but TWO people made the same choice.

If, however, I can wangle myself a brief trip home to take care of a few things and grab a few books, my laptop or something similar for two weeks of quarantine, that will also be most welcome. And really, given the timeline that might be what those TWO people (who are gathering so much hate) really wanted to do - get their affairs in order first.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Not sure what you mumble about Russia, its typical American originated practice and also used often here.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I wonder if Japan has laws pertaining to spread or infectious diseases , that could be the right trigger for voluntarily quarantine.

"if you pass it , you going to jail" in fact they should totally enact this and include flu into it...

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

most people are sheep with very little regard of how their actions could possibly affect others.. one is saying oh death is very low count, but spending weeks in hospital ,sick ( those cost money you know) especially to low - mid income people can be quite a blow . So yes in case of a known possibility of a spread of such disease , its government responsibility to force such ignorant sheep to do whats best for others.

their personal freedom or desires, should be not a consideration.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

@Flute Today 05:16 pm JST

Obviously, I summarized the law. Here it is, in its ugly beauty. First we look at the 検疫法, because that's where the basis for quarantine (隔離) is. First, we look at definitions.

第二条 この法律において「検疫感染症」とは、次に掲げる感染症をいう。

一 感染症の予防及び感染症の患者に対する医療に関する法律(平成十年法律第百十四号)に規定する一類感染症

二 感染症の予防及び感染症の患者に対する医療に関する法律に規定する新型インフルエンザ等感染症

三 前二号に掲げるもののほか、国内に常在しない感染症のうちその病原体が国内に侵入することを防止するためその病原体の有無に関する検査が必要なものとして政令で定めるもの

So we go to 感染症法 and find out what these 一類感染症 are:

第六条 この法律において「感染症」とは、一類感染症、二類感染症、三類感染症、四類感染症、五類感染症、新型インフルエンザ等感染症、指定感染症及び新感染症をいう。

2 この法律において「一類感染症」とは、次に掲げる感染性の疾病をいう。

一 エボラ出血熱

二 クリミア・コンゴ出血熱

三 痘そう

四 南米出血熱

五 ペスト

六 マールブルグ病

七 ラッサ熱

Well, our virus is not on it. The first subparagraph of Article 2 cannot apply. So we look at the second paragraph. Darn, it is NOT a 新型インフルエンザ等感染症 (it's not a flu of any type). And that's it, we are down to the third paragraph.

Now, let's look up the article on quarantine, which is Article 15 in 検疫法.

第十五条 前条第一項第一号に規定する隔離は、次の各号に掲げる感染症ごとに、それぞれ当該各号に掲げる医療機関に入院を委託して行う。ただし、緊急その他やむを得ない理由があるときは、当該各号に掲げる医療機関以外の病院又は診療所であつて検疫所長が適当と認めるものにその入院を委託して行うことができる。

一 第二条第一号に掲げる感染症 特定感染症指定医療機関(感染症の予防及び感染症の患者に対する医療に関する法律に規定する特定感染症指定医療機関をいう。以下同じ。)又は第一種感染症指定医療機関(同法に規定する第一種感染症指定医療機関をいう。以下同じ。)

二 第二条第二号に掲げる感染症 特定感染症指定医療機関、第一種感染症指定医療機関又は第二種感染症指定医療機関(感染症の予防及び感染症の患者に対する医療に関する法律に規定する第二種感染症指定医療機関をいう。以下同じ。)

Yup, that's it. Nothing for subparagraph 3 of article 2. No legal basis. QED. For a faster version, you might also look up the Health MInistry slideshow 000589476.pdf.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Kazuaki Shimazaki

三 前二号に掲げるもののほか、国内に常在しない感染症のうちその病原体が国内に侵入することを防止するためその病原体の有無に関する検査が必要なものとして政令で定めるもの

That is what the citation I quoted previously is about :

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/01/27/national/japan-designated-infectious-disease-system/

What kinds of steps does the one-year designation allow the government to take?

The designation gives the government legal power to take the same levels of precautions that can be implemented for Class 1 or Class 2 diseases.

For example, the government can legally order infected patients to be hospitalized and impose restrictions on their work activities to prevent further spread of a disease.

Medical costs for such patients are funded by the taxpayer.

After regarding legal basis to use a hotel as quarantine area there seems to be no legal basis, as you quoted : it is to be hospital and clinic even in the intent they can not put these in the officially agreed one.

第十五条 前条第一項第一号に規定する隔離は、次の各号に掲げる感染症ごとに、それぞれ当該各号に掲げる医療機関に入院を委託して行う。ただし、緊急その他やむを得ない理由があるときは、当該各号に掲げる医療機関以外の病院又は診療所であつて検疫所長が適当と認めるものにその入院を委託して行うことができる。

Thought on that one, I should suggest them to make amend so that they can take some other type of building fitting requirement to be transformed in emergency hospital and quarantined area as for example military base in case of big outbreak.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Flute Today 06:24 pm JST

The 指定感染症 is a concept within the 感染症法 - the verbiage does not even exist anywhere in the 検疫法 (use Find) which controls quarantine, so the designation allows the government to use the powers within the 感染症法, but not the 検疫法.

Really, it makes perfect sense if you think about checks and balances and not giving the government too much power. In essence, the national government will not be allowed to autonomously add to the reasons it can use to deprive someone of liberty (which is what a quarantine is, no matter the good faith). If you read the presentation, you'll notice even the hospitalization power has been thrown not to the national government, but the prefectural governor. Here's the relevant part in the 感染症法:

(入院)

第十九条 都道府県知事は、一類感染症のまん延を防止するため必要があると認めるときは、当該感染症の患者に対し特定感染症指定医療機関若しくは第一種感染症指定医療機関に入院し、又はその保護者に対し当該患者を入院させるべきことを勧告することができる。ただし、緊急その他やむを得ない理由があるときは、特定感染症指定医療機関若しくは第一種感染症指定医療機関以外の病院若しくは診療所であって当該都道府県知事が適当と認めるものに入院し、又は当該患者を入院させるべきことを勧告することができる。

2 都道府県知事は、前項の規定による勧告をする場合には、当該勧告に係る患者又はその保護者に対し適切な説明を行い、その理解を得るよう努めなければならない。

3 都道府県知事は、第一項の規定による勧告を受けた者が当該勧告に従わないときは、当該勧告に係る患者を特定感染症指定医療機関又は第一種感染症指定医療機関(同項ただし書の規定による勧告に従わないときは、特定感染症指定医療機関若しくは第一種感染症指定医療機関以外の病院又は診療所であって当該都道府県知事が適当と認めるもの)に入院させることができる。

4 第一項及び前項の規定に係る入院の期間は、七十二時間を超えてはならない。

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

And yet, for the love of me, I still don't understand why people still keep the LDP that's obviously incompetent around so damn long. I truly don't get this passion for punishment.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

First, English is my first language. 

That does not mean in any way that you can write properly English.

Second, before complaining about other people's poor writing, at least consider the possibility it may be your poor reading comprehension

No no it's your writing the problem. I write and read scientific literature on a daily basis so my reading comprehension is perfectly fine. For example from your post:

Try and understand that you are resetting entire boundaries of what people can "volunteer" or "agree" to and under what pressures.

This sentence literally makes no sense. What are those boundaries you are referring to? What pressures? And your posts are full of randomly put sentences like that.

Based on your response, I am assuming that you have at least understood the Public Law section of my previous response, so that leaves Private Law.

Here we go again, what are you talking about? What are for you public and private laws. Public Law is a law which is made for the proper conduct between individual in a society. It is a relationship between state and an individual. For Ex- Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, Criminal and Civil law. Whereas Private law refers to a law which is made for a proper conduct between individuals. So regardless of those definitions, this is not what we are talking about here which is the responsibility of a government to organize an effective protection to protect public health.

The long term effects are those on Law. You may remember the need for law to be consistent. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Once you have decided on something, we will all have to live with it in another situation.

This makes literally no sense.

Your argument is, if I understand it correctly, to say it is OK if they "agree". This is also the pretense by Britain. I am not sure exactly what combination of public and/or private law the other nations used, so I will evaluate the one I have at least a little detail on.

They did not use any magical laws. They simply use the power that the governments legitimately have when an extraordinary situation arises and when the government needs to protect its population. Again this is not rocket science and you are just bringing up non sense because you can't admit that you are flat wrong.

The first one is, it makes "two weeks deprivation of liberty" something someone can agree to in private law. And don't mince words - quarantine is deprivation of liberty. Do you want that to be the policy in the future?

Again this is non sense. Quarantine is not a privation of liberty. A quarantine is "a state, period, or place of isolation in which people or animals that have arrived from elsewhere or been exposed to infectious or contagious disease are placed". Your use of the term of private law is meaningless here (because you don't understand what it does really mean) and again you have provided no evidence whatsoever to prove that a quarantine can be used as a long term "policy" in the countries where it is applied. You provided none.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

"The measures were due to come into effect from Feb 7, but will now be moved up to Saturday, Abe said in the Diet."

In other words, they could have already done this when it mattered. SO much for Kazuaki Shimazaki's defense that it couldn't be done. Oops! He can backtrack all he likes, but every argument made that it could not be done has been shot down by this "fast-tracking".

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Kazuaki Shimazaki

Why are you bringing up what prefectoral government can do or not ?

Read what you quoted : Cabinet (National government) can make an ordinance to add infectious illness to the one enumerated in point 1 and 2 to avoid them spreading in Japan.

The government did it :

Japan has already decided to label the new virus a "designated infectious disease"

The article I quoted said it is valid only one year so If they want to extend it they will need to uphold a vote to add it to the list 1 or 2 permanently. But for 1 year it will be treated as it.

Stop underestimating japanese laws.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Everyone coming back from China should be quarantined, it's not time to play bureaucracy. It is time for Japan's government to protect its own citizens. If they refuse testing and go home they should be shot for risking infecting others.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Those crying over the use of "just saying" - grow a pair already. Just saying is implying that nobody has even mentioned Chinatown at all, and it's a giant population of Chinese. It's not a far stretch of the imagination that visiting Chinese go there, too, as well as those living there who do travel abroad.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

The argument over the laws regarding the government's right to test people is beside the point. It's a free country, relatively speaking, and people have no obligation to be tested for the virus.

That said, the Japanese government has no obligation to provide a free flight out of Wuhan to its citizens. Therefore, it missed the opportunity to make passage on the flight conditional on testing upon return home.

There is no need to get hysterical and change the law. The simple fact is, the government acted without forethought, and demonstrated incompetence once again.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

"With this measure, we will refuse infected individuals entry to Japan," Abe said.

what about returning nationals?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Too little, too late.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Let's not mention the number of visitors from China who may (or may not) have become infected before departing China in the run-up to the Lunar New Year. How does the govt think the bus driver and tour conductor got infected?!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wrong and inhuman. What has Japan become as a nation ?

There are things more dangerous than viruses, as simple as that.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

The common flu causes up to 5 million cases of severe illness worldwide and kills up to 650,000 people every year, according to the World Health Organization 

In the US:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that so far this season, there have been at least 15 million flu illnesses for the 2019-2020 season, 140,000 hospitalizations and 8,200 deaths in the U.S. The CDC reports there have been 54 reported flu-related pediatric deaths this season from Influenza B viruses. (The Hill)

Ordinary (annual flu) is much deadlier the Wuhan coronavirus. Forget all the media sensationalism.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Commentators here have frequently styled Abe a "dictator." I can understand their disappointment when he has failed to act like one.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@daito_hak Jan. 31 06:45 pm JST

I'll just cut to the important bits.

For Ex- Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, Criminal and Civil law.

Incorrect. Actually, Civil Law is considered private law (私法). You are almost right on the border line - Public Law concerns relationships between State and Individual, and assumes a Vertical relationship. Private law concerns relationships between individuals, and assumes a horizontal (equal) relationship. That's why Civil Law is private, not public law.

This makes literally no sense.

Do the words "precedent", "case law" or "jurisprudence" make sense to you?

we are talking about here which is the responsibility of a government to organize an effective protection to protect public health ... They simply use the power that the governments legitimately have when an extraordinary situation arises and when the government needs to protect its population.

I agree the government does have an obligation to organize a protection for Public Health, but it also has a obligation to not exceed the law. It should do its best with the tools (by which I include both technical and legal means) it has been given. It should not appropriate tools. And people who let the government appropriate tools on causes they for the moment think is right can regret it.

In this case, the Public Law power you think it has simply has not been given to it. The government has stated this, and this government does not have a reputation for "not using" the power it has been authorized by statute. A reading of the statutes will also suggest it is correct on the merits.

A quarantine is "a state, period, or place of isolation in which people or animals ... are placed"

How you can read words like "isolation" and not see deprivation of liberty is beyond me.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@smithinjapan Jan. 31 06:54 pm JST

"The measures were due to come into effect from Feb 7, but will now be moved up to Saturday, Abe said in the Diet."

The government certainly has the discretion to expedite the implementation of measures it is authorized to take, and if you want to propose it should have done that sooner, I won't oppose you.

It cannot expedite, or even execute measures it has not been authorized to take.

@Flute Jan. 31 07:18 pm JST

Cabinet (National government) can make an ordinance to add infectious illness to the one enumerated in point 1 and 2 to avoid them spreading in Japan.

It is not an ordinance. It is a 政令, the official translation is Cabinet Order. Ordinances are 条例, and are passed by prefectures. It's a small point but one that shows legal illiteracy.

指定感染症に対するこの法律の準用)

第七条 指定感染症については、一年以内の政令で定める期間に限り、政令で定めるところにより次条、第三章から第七章まで、第十章、第十二章及び第十三章の規定の全部又は一部を準用する。

Here's the reality. That designation does not do as much as you wish it to. It allows you to use PARTS of the law it is in, with no reference to other laws.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

For those who cry "racism" at travel bans and "hysteria" at practical measures, consider what would happen if 10s of millions of Japanese couldn't go to work for weeks at a time because they were sick - the economy would collapse.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites