Every set of Coronavirus regulations opens with a statement that they are a proportionate “response to the serious and imminent threat to public health which is posed by the incidence and spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in England”.
But this has been dangerous shorthand. It misses out key words from Section 45(C) of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 from where the regulations take their power.

Section 45(C) refers to “incidence or spread of infection or contamination” from the virus.
So presence of the virus is not enough. The response must be to “infection or contamination”

If @MichaelYeadon3 and @carlheneghan are correct, and the testing to date has been revealing presence/traces of the virus that is not properly within the meaning of an infection...
..then Mr Hancock, being aware of this, would not be able to make the declaration which he does against every set of regulations that he considers the restrictions (and criminal offences) imposed are proportionate to the threat posed by infection.
The consequence is that (a) regulations made to date may have been made unlawfully (b) if Mr Hancock with this information considers them no longer necessary he is, by those regulations, required immediately to revoke them.

It is unacceptable if Mr Hancock cannot explain...
..what is an infection.

It is unacceptable that he misleads Parliament and the public by reference to ‘cases’ which may have little relevance to levels of infection or potential for transmission.

He and SAGE must pressed on this in public, by influencers and MPs.

.. as for considering there to be a “serious and imminent risk”, that will be subject of another thread to how the public is being coerced threats based on misinformation at to what the law says. Meanwhile, @FatEmperor this is required viewing:

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Law-or-Fiction

Law-or-Fiction Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @laworfiction

31 Jul
There is NO LAW restricting Greater Manchester.

The govt has published none on the legislation site and referred to none on its Coronavirus webpages.

It is purely "guidance". there is no obligation whatsoever on the Muslim community or NW of England to obey Mr Hancock. 1/4
There is a change of language to tell the public these are ‘rules‘. If you want to be in Mr Hancock’s club, fine, but there is no obligation to join or to to pay his membership fee of removing, in his words on Talk Radio, "what life is worth living for". 2/4
The govt has told the Courts in defence of lockdown that it only made a ‘request’ to schools to close last March, but did not ‘direct’ them to do so. The govt is being no less duplicitous with the public now.

Media should be told. They should be asking about this.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!