Agree with the logic. Unfortunately we have 2 AWOL numnuts in another country who cannot be found and are "hiding" so perhaps they want to ensure containment?
Dunno, but my guess is they are in strict "protocol stance" now to prevent spread. They may be aware from previous disease outbreaks that follow up is logical for most folks with compliance, but they are dam*ed and determined to not let loose one person who might not comply?
Dunno.. but your post does seem logical.. yet all folks aren't. Ergo WHO statement last week to the people of Wuhan?
I will be very interested in keeping up on this thread what you guys find out in the future about these plane passengers and the outcome.
If the plane cases had already been confirmed to be caused by Covid-19, I think personally that would call for stronger measures than giving people a phone number to call and telling them to go on to their destinations.
But, the plane cases haven't been confirmed, and I think seeing it happen raises questions in us that we don't have the answers to.
We, most of us, want to have a different response from our governments than some of the things we've heard from Wuhan and China.
So what they're trying to do is to limit the spread whilst causing as little inconvenience as they can to the general public.
Keep the healthcare response for people who need it (because they've tested positive) and not for people who were on a plane with someone who ends up testing negative, like the men in the prison.
I would say it's fair to ask the passengers on the plane to make their way to their destination without detours. I would probably ask them to self-isolate for 48 hours until the test results come back...and I don't think they have asked them to do that. But I think it would be a better middle-road response than packing off 1000 or so people from eight planes off to one of these evacuation/quarantine centres when we might find that none of the people on the planes had Covid-19. And effective precautions can be taken without going to that extreme.
They've acknowledged (here, USA, presumably other nations, too) that they are aiming to keep the confirmed cases low, and to limit outbreaks of onward transmission in our countries, but they're not trying to have zero numbers, just to keep the numbers low and manageable for as long as possible. I know that doesn't sound quite as reassuring as them trying to squelch every case. But that's what they did with Ebola and they kept the outbreaks very, very small outside of the three main affected countries in West Africa. Due to the nature of the flu-like Covid-19, they don't have as much confidence that numbers can be kept that low for the medium- and long-term. The long-term hopes will be on a virus, and also affected by what happens now and in the medium term. The medium-term they will hope for few cases, but acknowledge that it won't be zero. The 'now' is taking steps to set up for the medium-term and try to prevent larger-sized outbreaks of ongoing transmission by honing in on any confirmed cases and doing strong contact-checking around those cases to create a kind of firebreak around each case.