> very few people would seriously argue that the government can't require someone with an active case of tuberculosis to stay out of the supermarket. The linke

> very few people would seriously argue that the government can't require someone with an active case of tuberculosis to stay out of the supermarket. The linked article seemed to me to clearly state if she goes to jail it’s to isolate and definitely also to get treated (“ordered her to jail to undergo involuntary testing and treatment until health officials deem it safe to release her”). Hence my focus on people who are against forced treatment - I don’t think notice and warning ameliorates their concerns at all.