Governor Pritzker’s Executive Order appears to conflict with IDPH Pandemic Plan

Illinois (ECWd) –

Illinois Governor JB Pritzker issued a shelter in place Executive Order to the Residents of the State of Illinois.

According to the Illinois Department of Public Health Pandemic Influenza Plan, it appears either the Governor is not following the plan, or is getting advice inconsistent with the IDPH plan.  Either way, the information in the designated plan sheds light on some important issues.  Most of the key information comes from page 66 forward.

From the IDPH Plan:

“No person may be ordered to be quarantined or isolated and no place may be ordered to be closed and made off limits to the public, however, except with the consent of the person or the owner of the place or upon the order of a court of competent jurisdiction (20 ILCS 2305/2(c)).” 

The very experts the Governor is supposedly getting his advice from state in their plan that no person may be ordered to be quarantined or isolated, or better yet, no place may be ordered to be closed and made off-limits to the public? See our previous Due Process article (here). The Governor’s Executive Orders deeming certain business nonessential appear to be in direct conflict with the plan created and in place by the health professionals.  (see page 71)

Scope
“The restriction of movement and/or activities involves the ability of state and local jurisdictions to be prepared legally, procedurally and materially to contain and monitor: exposed individuals or those suspected of being exposed (term: quarantine); infected individuals (term: isolation); defined groups or locations, such as individual schools, workplaces, malls and public transit systems, as determined on a case by case basis (term: focused measures to increase social distance); and entire communities, ranging from voluntary widespread cancellation of most activities (term: snow days), eliminating large gatherings of people, such as sporting events, shutting down other places where people congregate, such as schools and places of employment, or enforced restriction of movement into and out of defined areas.”

So how many of those subject to the Governor’s restriction of movement order have been exposed or suspected of being exposed to the COVID-19 virus?  Most know the answer is they have no idea of who has been exposed, or suspected of being exposed.  Considering the Governor has issued a one size fits all plan for the entire state, it appears the Scope of the IDPH plan which points to making decisions based on knowledge and on a case by case basis that includes defined locations, it’s clear the Governor has ignored the scope of the IDPH plan.  We covered this point in our Basic Logic Ignored article at this link.  How ironic that we figured out how the plan should work prior to reading the IDPH plan.

Of interest are the defined terms in the plan, “quarantine” and “isolation“.

Isolation: Isolation is the separation of a person or a group of persons infected or believed to be infected with a contagious disease to prevent the spread of infection. Ill persons are usually isolated in a hospital, but they also may be isolated at home or in a designated community-based facility, depending on their medical needs.

Quarantine: Quarantine is the separation and restriction of movement or activities of persons who are not ill, but who are believed to have been exposed to infection, for the purpose of preventing transmission of diseases.

Did you catch that?  Quarantine is for those who are not ill, but for those who are believed to have been exposed to infection and done for the purpose of preventing transmission.  How many of the people in this state are not ill but quarantined in their homes with the shelter in place order?  Better yet, how many of the people in this state are “believed” to have been exposed to infection?  Considering we have 6 counties with zero cases of infection, there is no justification for those people to be required to shelter in place without a belief that they have been exposed to infection.

Modes of application include:
• Persons are usually quarantined in their homes, but they also may be quarantined in community-based facilities.
• Quarantine can be applied to an individual or to a group of persons who are exposed at a large public gathering or to persons believed exposed on a conveyance during international travel.
• Quarantine also can be applied on a wider population or geographic-level basis (e.g., snow days) with the voluntary or enforced prohibition of movements or activities. This measure is usually not technically considered quarantine because it is not directly linked to a known or highly suspect exposure (at best, the basis might be some degree of likelihood of exposure due to circumstantial or indirect evidence, such as high disease prevalence in a particular town or neighborhood ). These options are described and compared in the attachment following this annex (Attachment 8-1)
• Quarantine (a period of isolation to prevent disease spread) is not effective in controlling multiple influenza outbreaks in large, immunologically naïve populations, because the disease spreads too rapidly to identify and to control chains of transmission. Even if quarantine were somewhat effective in controlling influenza in large populations, it would not be feasible to implement and enforce with available resources and would damage the economy by reducing the workforce. Most people will voluntarily quarantine themselves in their home.
• Quarantine may be of limited use in slowing the spread of disease during the earliest stages of influenza outbreaks, only if special circumstances apply. For example, were a case of influenza-like illness to be identified in an isolated group, such as the passengers and crew of an airplane, public health officials could prevent or slow the spread of disease to other groups by:
– Quarantining all passengers and crew members for several days
– Transferring all who become ill to isolation wards for treatment
– Treating all influenza-like illness in the wider community with suspicion

For those that just skimmed over the above information, IDPH states a period of isolation to prevent disease spread is NOT effective in controlling multiple influenza outbreaks in large, immunologically naive populations.  It also states even if quarantine were somewhat effective in controlling influenza in large populations, it would not be feasible to implement and enforce with available resources and would damage the economy by reducing the workforce.

Even if somewhat effective in controlling influenza in large populations, it would not be feasible to implement and enforce with available resources and would damage the economy by reducing the workforce. 

While the Governor continues to claim he is following the guidance of the experts, we now wonder who those experts are, as it is clear he has ignored key information from the IDPH Pandemic Influenza Plan, and as Judge McHaney stated today in the Temporary Restraining order, his Executive Orders have absolutely killed people’s property.   The judge made a point to explain that people have an absolute right work, travel, etc.

Had the Governor invoked orders on a case by case basis and in locations that were identified as a problem as outlined in the IDPH plan, he would not have had his backside handed to him in court today as there are no pandemic problems in Clay County or in other parts of the state.

Stay tuned for our future article where we cover the transcript that includes some pretty amazing statements and questions from today’s hearing where Darren Bailey was granted a Temporary Restraining Order on Pritzker’s stay at home Executive Order.

As a teaser, one statement the judge made today in court says it all in our opinion.

“Every second this Executive Order is in effect it shreds the Constitution and the Bill of Rights”

A copy of the IDPH Pandemic Plan can be downloaded at this link or viewed below.

.
Our work is funded entirely thru donations and we
ask that you consider donating at the below link.