A range of quarantine approaches were used in five jurisdictions heavily affected
by the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003. Implementation
of modern quarantine was resource intensive, involved coordination of multiple sectors
of society, frequently required new legislative actions or authorities, and was highly
dependent on effective communication.
In Toronto, Ontario, Canada, quarantine ranged from home quarantine with active surveillance
to enhanced passive surveillance augmented by education about prevention and a contact
number to call if symptoms developed. Healthcare workers were occasionally required
to adhere to "work quarantine." New legislation in Ontario authorized compulsory quarantine
with active follow-up for compliance. Although 30,000 people in Toronto were recommended
for quarantine, enforcement orders had to be issued in only 27 instances. A comprehensive
infrastructure was developed to support those in quarantine; masks, thermometers,
food, and financial assistance, as well as psychosocial support, were provided. Should
SARS return to Toronto, the same measures would be used to ensure that close contacts
of infected persons are isolated and actively monitored.
In Taiwan, from April 28 to July 4, 2003, travelers arriving from World Health Organization–designated
SARS-affected areas were quarantined for 10 days (level B quarantine). During the
SARS epidemic, 50,319 persons who were close contacts of SARS patients were placed
under level A quarantine; suspected or probable SARS was diagnosed for 112 (0.22%).
A total of 80,813 persons were placed under level B quarantine; 21 (0.03%) of these
cases were diagnosed as suspected or probable SARS. The strategies were later modified
as understanding of the infectivity of SARS increased, so that close contacts and
travelers from local transmission areas were required to follow guidelines of self
health management, including isolation at home only when they had a fever. Fever monitoring
at international ports initially continued year-round; its ongoing utility will be
further examined.
Singapore relied on effective quarantine of all persons who had unprotected close
contact with symptomatic case-patients. Critical systems were implemented for quarantine
policy and practice, legislative backing, communications, enforcement and surveillance,
safeguards on public transport and hospital visits, financial support, operational
costs, and compensation. As the gravity of the situation became clear, the Infectious
Diseases Act was invoked to impose quarantine on exposed, potentially infectious persons.
A Quarantine Board was set up to assist with decisions on a case-by-case basis. An
important lesson was the value of clear communication. As part of a comprehensive
financial and social support system, the government offered an allowance to self-employed
persons to compensate for part of their lost income and to establishments with affected
employees.
In Hong Kong, medical services were severely disrupted when 380 healthcare workers
became ill with SARS. From April to June 2003, the economy lost an estimated U.S.$3
billion, gross domestic product growth fell by 3.7%, and exports slumped by 13.9%.
SARS was controlled by a combination of measures, including disease surveillance,
isolation of cases, heightened infection control, contact tracing, quarantine, entry
and exit screening, and community engagement. Hospital isolation facilities and infection
control training were strengthened by adding 1,000 extra isolation beds and a U.S.$20
million training fund. Retrospective analysis showed that SARS developed in 2.7% of
household contacts in home quarantine, and approximately 90% of all case-patients
had an identifiable epidemiologic link. Entry and exit screenings that use health
declarations and temperature checks, which detected only two cases during the outbreak,
have covered 90 million passengers, 5,000 of whom had fever. Addressing surge capacity
was a key issue, in which the private medical sector and nongovernmental organizations
proved pivotal in providing medical services, community education, and support for
emergency operations, including quarantine both at home and at dedicated residential
facilities.
Beijing, China, experienced the world's largest outbreak of SARS in spring 2003 with
2,521 reported probable cases. Quarantine played an important role in controlling
the outbreak. By July 1, a total of 30,178 persons, 0.21% of the Beijing population,
had been quarantined. Most close contacts were quarantined at home (60%); the rest
were at designated sites, including hotels, universities, and construction worksites.
In late April, fever checks were instituted at the airport, major train stations,
and all 71 roads connecting Beijing to other areas; these sites used infrared thermometers
to screen and axillary thermometers to confirm fever among passengers. As of June
30, 2003, of almost 14 million people screened, only 12 probable cases of SARS were
identified. All healthcare workers in SARS-designated hospitals had to stay in designated
hotels close to the hospitals rather than at home. After finishing their work with
SARS patients, they were sent to resort areas for 2 more weeks. Top challenges for
implementing quarantine included tracing contacts, maintaining movement restrictions
even at home, and finding the resources to provide 10,000 people with supplies and
psychological care. Nonetheless, the same quarantine measures will be implemented
if SARS returns.