scorpion_runner wrote:
So they are a following a recommendation, Not a law?
Haven't other athletes been able to perform, who have had symptoms?
OK, I am going to out myself as a LetsRun fan to anyone who knows me, but then again if they are reading this they are on LetsRun, too.
I am a public health official, and this isn't medical advice to anyone, but...
For the IAAF to so heavily lean their PR messaging on this recommendation is pretty weak in my humble opinion. The decision comes down to event medical staff (in this case the IAAF Medical Delegate), with public health authorities providing a recommendation but rarely a legal order in a scenario like this.
It is extremely unlikely that Public Health England put a formal order on the IAAF or anyone else to isolate/quarantine/exclude Makwala.
That would be an absolutely extraordinary measure, more likely to be seen in a recalcitrant case of multi-drug resistant TB than garden-variety Norwalk.
Yet, here is the wording from the IAAF press release on the topic:
"As per UK health regulations, it was requested that he be quarantined in his room for 48 hours, a period which ends at 14:00hrs tomorrow (9 Aug).
(https://www.iaaf.org/news/press-release/iaaf-statement-isaac-makwala)
Implying a regulatory legal requirement in this case is quite deceptive. ("It was requested" strikes me as especially slimy here; he was most likely "requested" by the IAAF, but the sentence implies that UK health officials requested it.)
If the IAAF wants to say "We're not going to go against the advice of Public Health England" that is fine. The IAAF may even wish that public health would place an order, just so they could say 'Look! We had no choice!" But they did have a choice. It undermines the perception of legitimacy in genuine public health orders (e.g. What you'd see in an Ebola case) to suggest that Public Health England is out enforcing "regulations" on a guy who vomited yesterday and wants to run one lap today.