[M T]

Goose, you may have been talking about either the patient who had a positive test, or a close contact.  I will presume you meant only the person with the positive test.

I think you could ease what you described a bit:  The "county run facility" could be a hotel/motel/dorm, not a jail.  The patient would be confined, but would have meals brought in, have bed, bathroom, TV, access to Internet & phone, etc.  No visitors (but families/cohabitants in quarantine would be kept together, and probably could remain until the last ends his/her quarantine).     It certainly is less onerous than being in a hospital the entire time (what China did).

However, note that NYC has found that very few of such hotel rooms have been utilized.

I was quite surprised when SCC case #4 (or so), was let to return home with no monitoring (as far as reported) after her positive test, since she didn't need hospitalization.

A less optimal approach is to allow the individual to wear a location monitoring device to confirm that they stay home, as their choice rather than being moved to a county-run facility.   This has the risk of their infecting others that may come to the house (household members, food delivery, etc.) and they spread it further.

---

But, we don't really know that the disease is being spread significantly by individuals who know they have tested positive.  So, I'm not sure I would yet support this approach.  I think the voluntary isolation in a county facility is a good option, but unless you know someone is leaving their quarantine, I'm not quite ready for involuntary movement to a facility.  I would support involuntary location tracking during quarantine.

[M T]

Goose, you may have been talking about either the patient who had a positive test, or a close contact.  I will presume you meant only the person with the positive test.

I think you could ease what you described a bit:  The "county run facility" could be a hotel/motel/dorm, not a jail.  The patient would be confined, but would have meals brought in, have bed, bathroom, TV, access to Internet & phone, etc.  No visitors (but families/cohabitants in quarantine would be kept together, and probably could remain until the last ends his/her quarantine).     It certainly is less onerous than being in a hospital the entire time (what China did).

However, note that NYC has found that very few of such hotel rooms have been utilized.

I was quite surprised when SCC case #4 (or so), was let to return home with no monitoring (as far as reported) after her positive test, since she didn't need hospitalization.

A less optimal approach is to allow the individual to wear a location monitoring device to confirm that they stay home, as their choice rather than being moved to a county-run facility.   This has the risk of their infecting others that may come to the house (household members, food delivery, etc.) and they spread it further.

---

But, we don't really know that the disease is being spread significantly by individuals who know they have tested positive.  So, I'm not sure I would yet support this approach.  I think the voluntary isolation in a county facility is a good option, but unless you know someone is leaving their quarantine, I'm not quite ready for involuntary movement to a facility.  I would support involuntary location tracking during quarantine.