COVID-19 control and preventive measures: a medico-legal analysis

Use of face masks in conjunction with other social distancing measures reduces the risk of transmission of coronaviruses.2 This measure may be more useful in the current pandemic as pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic transmissions are common.3Moreover, several local clusters have been associated with mask-off activities.4 In contrast with public backlash over wearing masks in other regions, Hong Kong has registered a significantly high level of self-compliance reaching up to 97%,5 which is attributed to lessons learnt from 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak.6 Critics of compulsory mask wearing consider it an encroachment on personal liberty. [...]the High Court has held that Cap 599I “strikes a reasonable balance between (1) the societal benefits of the encroachment, and (2) the restriction of the [individual's] liberty”.7 The Prevention and Control of Disease (Prohibition on Group Gathering) Regulation (Cap 599G) imposes restriction on the permissible number of persons in public gatherings. Highrisk groups are identified and ordered to undergo testing, and this has been effective in limiting transmissions.8 However, this method is prone to recall bias (in which confirmed patients are unable to completely recall their close contacts) and may cause collateral effects (for example, the compulsory testing and quarantining of all residents in the whole building). [...]similar to criticisms made against Cap 599I and Cap 599G, although such interference is small given only highly specific groups are affected, the widespread deployment of Cap 599J powers may unduly interfere with personal freedoms and liberties.9 10 Insights derived above assist us in evaluating the potential mandatory use of the “LeaveHomeSafe” application in public facilities and compulsory vaccination of healthcare workers.