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”.
1/7

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.
2/7

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...
3/7

..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.
4/7

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...
5/7

..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.

And..6/7

.. 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:
7/7