Since the beginning of this year, Jilin, Shanghai, Beijing and other places have been severely affected by the epidemic. Under strict epidemic prevention and control policies, local governments have adopted centralized quarantine measures for people returning home from areas at r

Since this year, Jilin, Shanghai, Beijing and other places have been severely affected by the epidemic. Since May, many people from other provinces and cities who are working and studying in Shanghai have gradually left Shanghai and returned to their hometowns. Under strict epidemic prevention and control policies, local governments have adopted centralized quarantine measures for people returning home from areas at risk of the epidemic. Except for a few areas such as Wuhan, most places require returnees to bear the cost of quarantine themselves. Different centralized isolation policies have attracted attention, and the expensive isolation fees and poor isolation environment in a few places have repeatedly triggered public opinion.

Observing the practices in various places, we can find that the regulations in many places are mostly set by themselves and changed day by day. Some places stipulate that the quarantine costs for those who report three days in advance shall be borne by the government, while other personnel must pay for themselves; other places initially promised that the government would bear the quarantine costs for all those who reported in advance, but later changed their position and only borne the cost of the quarantine for those who reported in advance. There are even temporary price increases that make returnees confused about what to do.

html On June 5, the Ministry of Education issued the "Comprehensive Team of the Joint Prevention and Control Mechanism of the State Council to Deploy the National Epidemic Prevention and Control Work for College Students Returning to Their Hometowns" which clearly stated for the first time: "Students returning home who really need to be quarantined in a centralized manner will be exempted from centralized quarantine fees. ”, which finally solved the problem of the cost of centralized quarantine for returning students. But what needs further clarification is who should bear the costs of centralized quarantine for returnees?

According to current laws and regulations, if people need to be quarantined in a centralized manner due to epidemic prevention and control, whether they are returning college students or other returning people, the costs should be borne by the government. Paragraph 2 of Article 41 of the "Law on the Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases" stipulates that "during the isolation period, the people's government that implements isolation measures shall provide living security for the quarantined persons"; Article 49 of the "Emergency Response Law" also clearly stipulates : " After the occurrence of natural disasters, accidents, disasters or public health incidents, the people's government that performs unified leadership responsibilities may take one or more of the following emergency response measures: ... (3) Provide shelter and living space to the harmed persons Necessities, implement medical rescue, health and epidemic prevention and other safeguard measures... (7) Ensure the supply of basic necessities such as food, drinking water, fuel, etc. "

Although Article 41 of the "Infectious Disease Prevention and Control Law" is for the occurrence of Class A infections. However, the National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China issued an announcement at the beginning of the epidemic in 2020 that "with the approval of the State Council, pneumonia caused by the new coronavirus will be included in the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases" Category B infectious diseases are specified, and prevention and control measures for Category A infectious diseases are adopted. "As long as the identification of COVID-19 remains unchanged, regardless of whether it is based on the "Infectious Disease Prevention and Control Law" or the "Emergency Response Law", If local governments need to quarantine people returning home due to epidemic prevention and control, they should provide living security for the quarantined people. This is a government responsibility clearly stipulated by law. Therefore, in the context of the prevention and control policy of centralized quarantine of people returning home, regardless of who is quarantined, the cost of quarantine should be borne by the government and should not be passed on to the quarantined person.

From the perspective of the value concept of social governance, it is also the due meaning of the integration of law, reason and emotion that local governments bear the cost of centralized isolation of people returning home. People returning home are subject to centralized quarantine due to epidemic prevention and control policies, and they have surrendered their right to personal freedom for a certain period of time for the sake of public health safety. Article 990 of the " Civil Code " clearly stipulates in the definition of personality rights that "natural persons enjoy other personality rights and interests based on personal freedom and personal dignity." When one's own personality rights have been sacrificed for the public interest, still Letting them bear the cost of isolation is not only against the law, but also against the common sense of the world.

Reflecting on the over-prevention and control situation in some places during this epidemic, it is clear that local governments will bear the cost of centralized quarantine for people returning home, which may restrain the impulse of some local governments to increase and abuse "concentrated quarantine" measures at different levels.In this round of epidemic, both Shanghai and other risk areas have made provisions in line with the national epidemic prevention policy for people returning home. In addition to clearly stating that "you should not leave Shanghai unless necessary", Shanghai also clearly requires that people leaving Shanghai must hold a 48-hour Nucleic acid negative certificate. Under this premise, people who have returned home should bear the costs of centralized quarantine, which will undoubtedly encourage the arbitrary increase of centralized quarantine policies. The centralized quarantine times in various places vary from 3 days, 7 days, and 14 days, and the charging standards vary, which is enough to prove that this concern is by no means exaggerated. Therefore, it is even more legitimate and extremely necessary to use cost control and fiscal constraints to prevent the abuse of centralized isolation measures from harming people's rights and interests.

Affected by this round of epidemic, my country's economic and social development and people's lives have been greatly affected. Those who make a living in foreign lands are faced with the dilemma of short-term livelihood. Their desire to return to their hometowns to recuperate during extraordinary times must be respected and respected. care. Exempting people who have returned home from centralized quarantine fees is not only a matter of law-based and scientific epidemic prevention, but also a sincere demonstration of the people-centeredness of governments at all levels and their consideration for the difficulties of people's livelihood.

Author | Hu Xuemei (Professor and PhD Supervisor of Law School of East China Normal University)

(Original text published in "Scholar's Commentary" on page 3 of "Shanghai Rule of Law" on June 15, 2022, responsible editor: Xu Hui)