Epidemics Act

Last updated
Epidemics Act (EpidA)
Bundeshaus Bern 2009, Flooffy.jpg
Federal Assembly of Switzerland
  • Federal Act on the Control of Communicable Human Diseases (SR 818.101)
Territorial extent Switzerland
Enacted by Federal Assembly of Switzerland
Enacted28 September 2012
Commenced1 January 2016
Repeals
Epidemics Act (1970)
Status: Current legislation

Epidemics Act,EpidA(German: Epidemiengesetz; also known as Federal Act on the Control of Communicable Human Diseases) is a Swiss federal act designed to protect people from infections and to prevent and control the outbreak and spread of communicable diseases. The current version of the Epidemics Act is the result of the revision of September 28, 2012. The revision was necessary because the environment in which communicable diseases occur and pose a threat to public health has changed, and the law needed to be adapted accordingly.

Contents

An optional referendum against this revision was initiated by the EDU, the Citizens for Citizens Association (Verein Bürger für Bürger) and the Committee for True Democracy (Wahre Demokratie), and the 50,000 signature quorum was reached within 100 days. As a result, a referendum was held on September 22, 2013, in which the complete revision was approved by 60% of the population.

Development

The previous "Federal Act on Measures Against Publicly Dangerous Epidemics", in force from 1887 to 1974. SBB Historic - SBBKW91 196 03 A.pdf
The previous "Federal Act on Measures Against Publicly Dangerous Epidemics", in force from 1887 to 1974.

The Federal Act on the Control of Communicable Human Diseases of September 28, 2012, currently in force, is a complete revision of the Federal Act of December 18, 1970. In turn, this was based on the Federal Act on Measures Against Publicly Dangerous Epidemics (Bundesgesetz betreffend Massnahmen gegen gemeingefährliche Epidemien) of July 2, 1886. The Epidemics Act of 1886 solely addressed public health epidemics, namely smallpox, cholera, typhus and the plague. Any other diseases were a cantonal matter. The typhus epidemic of 1963 in Zermatt, with about 400 cases and several deaths, led to a complete revision of the Epidemics Act of 1886. Previous outbreaks of diseases such as tuberculosis had also led to changes in the Federal Constitution (FC). Between the complete revision of December 18, 1970, and the update of September 28, 2012, there were various minor revisions, most recently in 2006. Almost all of these revisions have significantly increased the scope of the Confederation's powers. [1]

Purpose

The revised Epidemics Act aims to swiftly and efficiently coordinate all infrastructures that can aid in the monitoring, prevention, and control of human communicable diseases. The Confederation can promptly declare three levels of severity under the EpidA: normal, special, and extraordinary situations.

During a "normal situation", the cantons are responsible for enforcing the Epidemics Act and the Epidemics Ordinance (Epidemienverordnung or EpV). The Confederation has limited competencies, which include providing information and recommendations, controlling entry and exit, and coordinating with cantons upon request.

In a "special situation", [2] the Federal Council (Bundesrat) may order individual quarantines, restrict capacity at events or even cancel them; it is authorized to close schools; it may require physicians and other health professionals to cooperate to control the then-emerging disease; and it may declare vaccinations mandatory. Regulations can take the form of a specific injunction, such as banning a particular event, or an ordinance, such as prohibiting events throughout Switzerland. The "special situation" is defined as an epidemiological emergency and can be compared to a moderate influenza pandemic, the SARS pandemic, and H1N1. The FDHA coordinates federal measures during a "special situation". The "special situation" occurs when "the ordinary law enforcement agencies are unable to prevent and control the outbreak and spread of communicable diseases". [3] Additionally, one of the following risks must also be present:

In an "extraordinary situation", [4] the Federal Council may, on the basis of Art. 185 Archived 2021-07-06 at the Wayback Machine (3) of the FC, issue an emergency decree without any basis in a federal act passed by parliament, and subject to an optional referendum by the people. Since the Federal Council is already constitutionally empowered to issue these ordinances, Art. 7 of the EpidA is of a declaratory nature. Due to the unpredictability of an acute, serious threat to public health, no specific measures are provided for the "extraordinary situation". In the event of an outbreak, the constitutional emergency law allows the Federal Council to order appropriate measures. According to Art. 7d of the Government and Administration Organisation Act (GAOA), these ordinances shall become invalid if the Federal Council does not submit to Parliament (within six months) a bill for a federal act or a parliamentary emergency ordinance to replace those of the Federal Council. An "extraordinary situation" requires a national threat that endangers Switzerland's external or internal security. Only worst-case pandemics would qualify, such as the Spanish flu or the COVID-19 pandemic. [5]

Content

Detection and monitoring

Art. 11 of the EpidA gives the Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH) responsibility for setting up and operating systems for the early detection and monitoring of potential hazards. This is done in close cooperation between the FOPH and the cantons, but also with the Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office (FSVO) or the Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN). This close cooperation between the FOPH, other federal agencies and the cantons is of great importance. The cantons contribute their proximity to epidemiological events and health-related incidents and their responsibility for enforcement, while the FOPH ensures uniform reporting and evaluation criteria, professional epidemiological data processing and international networking. The involvement of other federal agencies enables a uniform evaluation of the situation and thus uniform enforcement.

The central instrument for this is the reporting obligation under Art. 12 of the EpidA. It stipulates that the medical profession, hospitals, rehabilitation centers, nursing homes, outpatient clinics, organizations or telephone medical hotlines and pharmacies must report communicable diseases to the FOPH or the competent cantonal authority. Diseases associated with an epidemic risk or severe course are monitored. This includes events that are novel or unexpected or for which monitoring is internationally agreed. The reporting obligation is specified in Art. 12 of the EpidA. The diagnosing physicians must report observations of communicable diseases to the cantonal medical services, which in turn forward these reports to the FOPH. In principle, the reports are first sent to the authority responsible for emergency measures. In certain cases, particularly when emergency measures involve more than one canton and international notification is required, reports should also be sent directly to the FOPH. In addition, the Federal Council may order reports on prevention and control measures and their effects, as well as the sending of samples and test results to laboratories designated by the competent authorities.

Prevention

Vaccines

The FOPH and the Federal Commission for Vaccination (FCV) regulate vaccination strategies and objectives. To implement them, both bodies issue specific vaccination recommendations. Art. 20(2) of the EpidA states:

"Doctors and other healthcare specialists shall assist in implementing the national vaccination plan as part of their activities."

According to Art. 22 of the EpidA:

"The cantons may declare vaccinations to be mandatory for population groups at high risk, persons who are particularly exposed to infection and persons that carry out certain activities, provided there is a significant risk."

In the case of "special" and "exceptional" situations, the Federal Council may also order compulsory vaccination (Swiss: Impfobligatorium). Mandatory vaccination can therefore only be imposed on vulnerable groups and not generally on the entire population. Moreover, this measure is reserved for situations in which all other means have been exhausted. This is because mandatory vaccination interferes with personal freedom. [6] According to Art. 36 Archived 2021-07-06 at the Wayback Machine of the Federal Constitution (FC), such restrictions on fundamental rights is only permissible if:

  • They are based on a sound legal foundation.
  • They are justified in the public interest (in the event of highly contagious diseases with potentially serious outcomes).
  • They are proportionate.

Mandatory vaccination of specific populations may be necessary in the event of a severe, swiftly spreading, and sometimes lethal infectious illness.

Compensation for any pain and suffering resulting from a vaccine adverse event is covered by Art. 64 ff. of the EpidA.

Biosafety

The Epidemics Act requires due care (Sorgfalt) to be exercised by anyone handling pathogens or their toxic products. It specifies that all measures must be taken to ensure that no harm comes to humans as a result of this activity. [7] This due care includes the handling of genetic material or microorganisms that could cause disease as a result of genetic modification. Art. 28 of the EpidA states:

"Anyone who places pathogens on the market must inform purchasers about the properties and hazards relevant to health and about the necessary precautionary and protective measures."

The Federal Council is also authorized to restrict or ban the handling of certain pathogens. The WHO Action Plan for the eradication of poliomyelitis may also require the destruction of polio infectious materials or the prohibition and/or restriction of the handling of polioviruses in closed systems in the long term. Additionally, the Federal Council's competence in the field of biological weapons is within the framework of Switzerland's obligations under international law. [Note 1]

Countermeasures

Most measures to safeguard public health have an impact on constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. Consequently, the competent authorities should assume responsibility. Decisions must also be made in cases where adequate scientific assessment is complicated. Since not all hazards can be conclusively defined, the competent authorities have a wide margin of discretion in deciding how to take action. In compliance with the principle of proportionality, these actions are lawful only if all less restrictive actions have been explored.

Based on the varying intensities of these measures, the Federal Council outlines a series of stages as required by law. The least severe measure is medical monitoring. [8] The ban on practicing a profession or activity would have a stronger intrusive effect. [9] Seclusion in a hospital or another appropriate institution is the most restrictive measure, [10] along with an order for medical treatment. [11] The law distinguishes between isolation and quarantine. Isolation refers to the confinement of individuals who are sick and infected, while quarantine refers to the confinement of individuals who are suspected of being sick or infected. The aim of both measures is to stop the transmission of infection. Both measures must be ordered beforehand at the individual's place of residence. Transfer to an alternate facility is only allowed if staying at home is inadequate or ineffective in stopping the continued spread of the disease.

The Epidemics Act provides numerous mechanisms to cantonal authorities to prevent the transmission of communicable diseases. For example, Art. 40 stipulates that events may be either banned or restricted; schools and other public institutions may be closed; and entry to and exit from certain buildings and areas, as well as certain activities in certain places, may be prohibited. According to Art. 41(2), the FOPH is authorized to require individuals entering or leaving Switzerland:

To prevent the spread of a disease, individuals may be denied permission to leave the country by the FOPH. However, this measure should only be used as a last resort.

Organization and procedures

The Epidemics Act establishes two bodies: the Emergency Response Body and the Coordination Body.

The Emergency Response Body exists only temporarily and can be called into action in special and extraordinary situations. [12] If this occurs, any special task force [13] set up in the course of the epidemiological emergency is disbanded and transferred to the Emergency Response Body. The Emergency Response Body is responsible for advising the Federal Council and coordinating measures.

Since the complete revision on September 28, 2012, a Coordination Body (Koordinationsorgan or KOr) has been established with legal support in Art. 54 of the EpidA. Its role is to coordinate technical collaboration between the Confederation and the cantons, but it lacks decision-making or enforcement capabilities, as these are the responsibility of the Confederation and the cantons. The Coordination Body may establish sub-bodies as necessary, one of which pertains to zoonoses. These sub-bodies shall be staffed mainly by members of the FOPH and cantonal doctors. Although the Federal Council oversees the Coordination Body, it does not constitute an extraparliamentary commission as defined in Art. 57a of the GAOA.

The law establishes the Federal Commission for Vaccination (FCV) [14] and the Swiss Expert Committee for Biosafety (SECB). [15] The FCV is responsible for advising the Federal Council on legislation and the federal and cantonal authorities on enforcement. The SECB offers guidance to authorities on safeguarding human and environmental well-being in the realm of biotechnology and gene technology.

Implementation

Enforcing the Epidemics Act falls under the jurisdiction of the cantons, unless the Confederation assumes responsibility. [16] This is in accordance with the Federal Constitution, which states in Art. 118 Archived 2021-07-06 at the Wayback Machine (2) that the Confederation is operationally active only in specific health protection areas. Nevertheless, the Confederation has exclusive responsibility for legislation on communicable diseases and ensures that federal law is enforced by the cantons. [17]

According to Art. 77(2) of the EpidA, the Confederation coordinates enforcement measures among the cantons in cases where there is a need for uniformity. Therefore, it can direct the cantons to implement certain measures or issue regulations to ensure uniform enforcement if a risk to public health is identified. [18]

Complete revision of September 28, 2012

Legislation in the event of an infectious disease outbreak (Federal Office of Public Health). Derzeitige Epidemienregelung der Schweiz.jpg
Legislation in the event of an infectious disease outbreak (Federal Office of Public Health).

Initial situation

The Federal Council concluded in its official statement that the current Epidemics Act was no longer adequate. Since the implementation of the Epidemics Act in 1970, significant changes took place that necessitated a complete revision, both from a legal and technical point of view. The legal situation, in the Federal Council's view, was too ambiguous to sufficiently prepare for a disease's outbreak and spread. Reliance on emergency articles was widespread, [19] [20] albeit their scope remained ambiguously defined, as evidenced by the SARS pandemic. In addition, the current law was limited to sanitary measures and largely excluded preventive measures. Ultimately, what was missing was a "purpose article," which would make it clear what public interests were being served by the legislation. The lack of a purpose article hindered the establishment of a basis for legal action.

Procedure

The need for a revision of the Epidemics Act was undisputed during the negotiations. Only the vaccination obligation proposed by the Federal Council was controversial in the National Council. Opponents of compulsory vaccination oppose it due to infringement on personal freedom. Additionally, the effectiveness and side effects of new vaccines often require years to be proven. Supporters, however, argued that public health must be prioritized over individual freedom in emergency situations. Moreover, it was proposed as a vaccination policy, meaning no individual was compelled to receive vaccination against their will; nevertheless, those who refused to comply may face consequences under labor law. A proposal to weaken the vaccination mandate, presented by opponents, was defeated in votes of 94 to 69 and 105 to 51. In contrast, a proposal put forward by the SP and SVP was approved with a vote of 103 to 62. According to this proposal, the cantons would no longer have the authority to order vaccinations. They would solely be able to propose and recommend them.

The Council of States approved, by a margin of 7 votes to 11, the competence of the cantons to make vaccinations compulsory for certain groups of people under certain circumstances. Since this was contrary to the National Council's decision, a "resolution of differences" (Differenzbereinigung) took place in which the National Council bowed to the Council of States' decision and accepted (by 88 votes to 78) that cantons could make vaccinations compulsory.

The new federal law gained approval in the National Council by a vote of 149 to 14 with 25 abstentions, and in the Council of States by a vote of 40 to 2 with 3 abstentions. [21]

Amendments to the previous Act

In comparison with the Act of 1970, some aspects have changed as a result of the complete

Optional referendum

On September 28, 2012, the Federal Assembly passed a resolution to adopt the revised Act. The Federal Chancellery published the decision in the Federal Gazette, and the referendum period began (100 days for 50,000 signatures [23] ). On January 17, 2013, the signatures were submitted by the Referendum Committee. [24] The referendum was announced by the Federal Chancellery on February 19, 2013, with 77,360 valid signatures. [25] The Act was approved with a 60.00% majority in a referendum held on September 22, 2013. [26] It became effective on January 1, 2016.

Referendum

Stances

Results

Amendments to the previous Act - Official final results [28]
CantonYes (%)No (%)Participation (%)
Zurich 60,5 %30,5 %49,28%
Bern 54,9 %45,1 %44,77 %
Lucerne 59,5 %40,5 %47,56 %
Uri 49,5 %50,5 %44,85 %
Schwyz 45,5 %54,5 %49,67 %
Obwalden 51,4 %48,6 %49,71 %
Nildwalden 56,1 %43,9 %50,00 %
Glarus 51,3 %48,7 %38,27 %
Zug 57,4 %42,6 %50,35 %
Fribourg 66,0 %34,00 %46,59 %
Solothurn 58,3 %41,7%45,04 %
Basel-Stadt 67,7 %32,3 %47,15 %
Basel-Landschaft 62,3 %44,13 %44,12 %
Schaffhausen 50,0 %50,0 %63,71 %
Appenzell Ausserrhoden 44,9 %55,1 %50,66 %
Appenzell Innerrhoden 46,0 %54,0 %41,10 %
St. Gallen 50,6 %49,4 %45,89 %
Grisons 55,8 %44,2 %43,08 %
Aargau 55,9 %44,1 %47,41 %
Thurgau 50,3 %49,7 %45,54 %
Ticino 64,4 %35,6 %46,96 %
Vaud 73,6 %26,4 %45,99 %
Valais 61,9 %38,1 %47,53 %
Neuchâtel 67,0 %33,0 %42,74 %
Geneva 77,8 %22,2 %47,48 %
Jura 59,5 %40,5 %36,67 %
Swiss Confederation 60,0 %40,0 %46,76%

Application during the COVID-19 pandemic

On February 25, 2020, the first confirmed case of SARS COV-2 infection was reported in Switzerland. Based on Art. 6(2)(b) of the EpidA, the Federal Council issued the Ordinance 3 on Measures to Combat the Coronavirus (COVID-19), also referred to as the COVID-19 Ordinance 3, on February 28, 2020. This ordinance prohibits both public and private events with over 1000 attendees present simultaneously. On March 13 of that year, the Federal Council issued a new ordinance based on the Epidemics Act and the Federal Constitution. Consequently, the second ordinance was deemed an emergency ordinance - as opposed to the first one, which was an independent ordinance. On March 16, the Swiss situation was classified as exceptional. The Federal Council's legal basis for the COVID-19 app [29] was instructed to be drawn up and submitted to Parliament for approval based on two motions (20.3168 and 20.3144). The Council proposed an urgent amendment to the Epidemics Act, which the Assembly accepted. The amendment was effective from June 27, 2020, to June 30, 2022. [30]

On September 25, 2020, the Federal Assembly passed the Federal Act on the Statutory Principles for Federal Council Ordinances on Combating the COVID-19 Epidemic, also referred to as the COVID-19 Act. It was considered urgent and enacted on September 26, 2020.

Constitutionality and delegation

The primary constitutional foundation for the Epidemics Act is Art. 118 Archived 2021-07-06 at the Wayback Machine (2)(b) of the FC, which specifies:

"It [the Confederation] shall legislate on the combating of communicable, widespread or particularly dangerous human and animal diseases."

The mentioned characteristics, including transmissibility, high prevalence, or malignancy, do not have to coexist but only occur alternately. Art. 118(3)(b) does not address the state instruments for combating these diseases. Control in this context encompasses not only preventive health measures but also preventive or health-promoting measures. Since genetically modified pathogens were included in the revised Epidemics Act of December 21, 1995, Art. 119 Archived 2021-07-06 at the Wayback Machine (2) and Art. 120 Archived 2021-07-06 at the Wayback Machine (2) of the FC, which directly address this issue, were also incorporated. In addition, Art. 40 Archived 2021-07-06 at the Wayback Machine (2) provides the basis for measures in favor of Swiss citizens living abroad.

The Epidemics Act includes rules for delegating authority to issue dependent ordinances. In simpler terms, some legislative powers are transferred from the legislature to the executive, unless they are excluded by the Federal Constitution. [31] These regulations require a greater degree of specificity than can be achieved through legislation alone. Under constitutional mandates, delegated powers should be limited to specific areas of regulation and cannot be unlimited in scope. An example of this is the reporting requirement under the Epidemics Act, which cannot be fully codified due to the need for ongoing scientific progress.

Notes

  1. ↑ See: Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction (in German)

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Quarantine</span> Epidemiological intervention to prevent disease transmission

A quarantine is a restriction on the movement of people, animals and goods which is intended to prevent the spread of disease or pests. It is often used in connection to disease and illness, preventing the movement of those who may have been exposed to a communicable disease, yet do not have a confirmed medical diagnosis. It is distinct from medical isolation, in which those confirmed to be infected with a communicable disease are isolated from the healthy population. Quarantine considerations are often one aspect of border control.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Council (Switzerland)</span> Lower house of the Federal Assembly of Switzerland

The National Council is the lower house of the Federal Assembly, and the upper house being the Council of States. With 200 seats, the National Council is the larger of the two houses.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Council of States (Switzerland)</span> Upper house of the Federal Assembly of Switzerland

The Council of States is the upper house of the Federal Assembly, and the lower house being the National Council. It comprises 46 members.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Flag of Switzerland</span> National flag

The national flag of Switzerland displays a white cross in the centre of a square red field. The white cross is known as the Swiss cross or the federal cross. Its arms are equilateral, and their ratio of length to width is 7:6. The size of the cross in relation to the field was set in 2017 as 5:8. Alongside the flag of Vatican City, the Swiss flag is one of only two square national flags in the world.

A notifiable disease is any disease that is required by law to be reported to government authorities. The collation of information allows the authorities to monitor the disease, and provides early warning of possible outbreaks. In the case of livestock diseases, there may also be the legal requirement to kill the infected livestock upon notification. Many governments have enacted regulations for reporting of both human and animal diseases.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Food safety in China</span>

Food safety in China is a widespread concern for the country's agricultural industry. China's principal crops are rice, corn, wheat, soybeans, and cotton in addition to apples and other fruits and vegetables. China's principal livestock products include pork, beef, dairy, and eggs. The Chinese government oversees agricultural production as well as the manufacture of food packaging, containers, chemical additives, drug production, and business regulation. In recent years, the Chinese government attempted to consolidate food safety regulation with the creation of the State Food and Drug Administration of China in 2003; officials have also been under increasing public and international pressure to solve food safety problems. Chinese Vice Premier Li Keqiang said, "Food is essential, and safety should be a top priority. Food safety is closely related to people's lives and health and economic development and social harmony," at a State Council meeting in Beijing.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law enforcement in Switzerland</span> Overview of law enforcement in Switzerland

Law enforcement in Switzerland is mainly a responsibility of the 26 cantons of Switzerland, who each operate cantonal police agencies. Some cities also operate municipal police agencies as provided for by cantonal law.

Ten referendums were held in Switzerland during 2008. The first two were held on 24 February on business tax reform and aircraft noise. A further three were held on 1 June on public information campaigns, naturalisation and health reform. The final five were held on 30 November on legalising cannabis, making the pension age flexible, restricting the right of appeal of associations against construction projects, amending the constitutional article on narcotics and eliminating the statute of limitations with respect to pornographic crimes against children.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cannabis in Switzerland</span> Use of cannabis in Switzerland

Cannabis in Switzerland is illegal, though minor possession was decriminalised to a fine in 2012. Several cantons began to allow adults to cultivate and use cannabis in 2012, but this was struck down by federal courts. In 2016, four cities stated they were looking into establishing pilot cannabis clubs. The number of cannabis users in Switzerland is estimated to be around 500,000 among a population of 8 million.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law of Switzerland</span>

Swiss law is a set of rules which constitutes the law in Switzerland.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Swiss Criminal Code</span> Criminal code

The Swiss Criminal Code is a portion of the third part of the internal Swiss law that regulates the criminal code in Switzerland. The original version was created on 21 December 1937. It entered into force on 1 January 1942. Previously, criminal law had been a cantonal competency.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cultural heritage protection in Switzerland</span>

The Swiss Agency for the Protection of Cultural Property defines measures to protect cultural property against damage, destruction, theft and loss. For this purpose, a legal basis has been established at the national level and international agreements have been made that oblige Switzerland to respect and support the protection of cultural property not only on its own territory but also on the sovereign territory of other state parties.

The Official Compilation of Federal Legislation (AS) (German: Amtliche Sammlung des Bundesrechts, AS; French: Recueil officiel du droit fédéral, RO; Italian: Raccolta ufficiale delle leggi federali, RU) is the federal government gazette of Switzerland. All Swiss federal laws and ordinances, as well as amendments to them, enter into force by chronological publication in the AS/RO/RU.

<i>Federal Gazette</i> (Switzerland) Swiss federal public journal

The Federal Gazette is the official gazette of the federal government of Switzerland.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2016 Angola and DR Congo yellow fever outbreak</span> Disease outbreak in Africa

On 20 January 2016, the health minister of Angola reported 23 cases of yellow fever with 7 deaths among Eritrean and Congolese citizens living in Angola in Viana municipality, a suburb of the capital of Luanda. The first cases were reported in Eritrean visitors beginning on 5 December 2015 and confirmed by the Pasteur WHO reference laboratory in Dakar, Senegal in January. The outbreak was classified as an urban cycle of yellow fever transmission, which can spread rapidly. A preliminary finding that the strain of the yellow fever virus was closely related to a strain identified in a 1971 outbreak in Angola was confirmed in August 2016. Moderators from ProMED-mail stressed the importance of initiating a vaccination campaign immediately to prevent further spread. The CDC classified the outbreak as Watch Level 2 on 7 April 2016. The WHO declared it a grade 2 event on its emergency response framework having moderate public health consequences.

The COVID-19 pandemic in Switzerland is part of the worldwide pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. The virus was confirmed to have spread to Switzerland on 25 February 2020 when the first case of COVID-19 was confirmed following a COVID-19 pandemic in Italy. A 70-year-old man in the Italian-speaking canton of Ticino which borders Italy, tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. The man had previously visited Milan. Afterwards, multiple cases related to the Italy clusters were discovered in multiple cantons, including Basel-City, Zürich, and Graubünden. Multiple isolated cases not related to the Italy clusters were also subsequently confirmed.

The Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 is a law which was first enacted to tackle bubonic plague in Mumbai in former British India. The law is meant for containment of epidemics by providing special powers that are required for the implementation of containment measures to control the spread of the disease.

<i>Quarantine Act, 2005</i>

The Quarantine Act, 2005 is an act of the Parliament of Canada, which regulates the use of quarantine to prevent the introduction and spread of communicable diseases. Introduced in the aftermath of the 2002–04 SARS outbreak, the act grants the ability to designate quarantine facilities, require health screenings upon arrival or exit of the country, and issue emergency orders that impose conditions or prohibitions on the entry of individuals or imports in order to prevent the spread of communicable diseases. It also imposes fines on those who disobey quarantine officers or quarantine orders. The act was invoked in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Daniel Koch is a Swiss physician and federal employee. From 2008 to 2020 he was the head of the Swiss federal section "Communicable Diseases" of the Federal Office of Public Health.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">COVID-19 vaccination in Switzerland</span> Plan to immunize against COVID-19

COVID-19 vaccination in Switzerland is an ongoing immunization campaign against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), in response to the ongoing pandemic in the country.

References

  1. ↑ "Botschaft zur Revision des Bundesgesetzes über die Bekämpfung übertragbarer Krankheiten des Menschen (Epidemiengesetz, EpG)". Bundesblatt (in German). Bundeskanzlei. pp. 17–18. Retrieved 2022-05-07.
  2. ↑ Art. 6 of the EpidA
  3. 1 2 3 4 Art. 6(1)(a) of the EpidA
  4. ↑ Art. 7 of the EpidA
  5. ↑ FOPH, Federal Office of Public Health. "Communicable Diseases Legislation – Epidemics Act, (EpidA)". www.bag.admin.ch. Retrieved 2023-12-06.
  6. ↑ Art. 10 Archived 2021-07-06 at the Wayback Machine (2) of the FC
  7. ↑ Art. 25 of the EpidA
  8. ↑ Art. 34 of the EpidA
  9. ↑ Art. 38 of the EpidA
  10. ↑ Art. 35 of the EpidA
  11. ↑ Art. 37 of the EpidA
  12. ↑ Art. 55 of the EpidA
  13. ↑ Art. 4 of the Influenza PandemiOordinance (Influenza-Pandemieverordnung or IPV) (in German)
  14. ↑ Art. 56 of the EpidA
  15. ↑ Art. 57 of the EpidA
  16. ↑ Art. 75 of the EpidA
  17. ↑ Art. 186 Archived 2021-07-06 at the Wayback Machine (4) of the FC
  18. ↑ "Botschaft zur Revision des Bundesgesetzes über die Bekämpfung übertragbarer Krankheiten des Menschen (Epidemiengesetz, EpG)". Bundesblatt (in German). Bundeskanzlei. Retrieved 2022-05-07.
  19. ↑ Art. 10a of the EpidA of December 18, 1970
  20. ↑ "Bundesgesetz vom 18. Dezember 1970 über die Bekämpfung übertragbarer Krankheiten des Menschen (Epidemiengesetz)". Bundesblatt (in German). Bundeskanzlei. Retrieved 2022-05-27.
  21. ↑ "Verhandlungen" (PDF). Curia Vista (in German). Parlamentsdienste. Retrieved 2022-06-02.
  22. ↑ "Gesetzgebung Übertragbare Krankheiten – Epidemiengesetz (EpG)" (in German). Bundesamt für Gesundheit BAG. Retrieved 2022-06-04.
  23. ↑ Art. 141 Archived 2021-07-06 at the Wayback Machine of the FC
  24. ↑ Bundeskanzlei BK. "Bundesgesetz über die Bekämpfung übertragbarer Krankheiten des Menschen (Epidemiengesetz, EpG) Chronologie". Politische Rechte (in German). Bundeskanzlei. Retrieved 2022-06-07.
  25. ↑ "Referendum gegen das Bundesgesetz vom 28. September 2012 über die Bekämpfung übertragbarer Krankheiten des Menschen (Epidemiengesetz, EpG). Zustandekommen". Bundesblatt (in German). Bundeskanzlei. 2013-02-19. Retrieved 2022-06-07.
  26. ↑ "Bundesratsbeschluss über das Ergebnis der Volksabstimmung vom 22. September 2013 (Volksinitiative «Ja zur Aufhebung der Wehrpflicht»; Bundesgesetz über die Bekämpfung übertragbarer Krankheiten des Menschen [Epidemiengesetz, EpG]; Änderung des Bundesgesetzes über die Arbeit in Industrie, Gewerbe und Handel [Arbeitsgesetz, ArG])". Bundesblatt (in German). Bundeskanzlei. 2013-11-18. Retrieved 2022-06-07.
  27. ↑ "Epidemiengesetz". swissvotes.ch (in German). Institut für Politikwissenschaft der Universität Bern. Retrieved 2022-04-24.
  28. ↑ "Vorlage Nr. 573 Resultate in den Kantonen" (in German). Bundeskanzlei. Retrieved 2022-07-19.
  29. ↑ "Botschaft zu einer dringlichen Änderung des Epidemiengesetzes im Zusammenhang mit dem Coronavirus (Proximity-Tracing-System)". Bundesblatt (in German). Bundeskanzlei. 2020-05-20. Retrieved 2022-06-27.
  30. ↑ "Die Bundesversammlung und die Covid-19-Krise: Ein chronologischer Überblick" (PDF). parlament.ch (in Swiss High German). Parlamentsdienste. 2021-06-18. Retrieved 2022-06-12.
  31. ↑ Art. 164(2) of the FC
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.