Several residents who were supposed to exit the quarantine hotel on August 17 have been mandated to stay as their quarantine is extended. This news was not well received by some as local authorities allegedly failed to clearly explain why they were not permitted to leave.
Speaking to the Times, a family that recently came back from Portugal on August 11 was admitted at Treasure Hotel for the mandatory seven-day quarantine until August 18.
As it was a family of three, the mother stayed alone in one room, while the father and son stayed in an adjacent room.
On August 17 both adults received a phone call informing them their quarantine was extended by two more days due to “a lot of people testing positive on the floor.”
“I asked how many people tested positive, which rooms, who made the decision and if we were going to receive a written notice, but the person on the phone just kept saying ‘I don’t know,’” said Cristina, who declined to provide her last name.
According to Cristina, the caller suggested they call the Center for Disease Control. However, no one answered.
On August 20, the day they were supposed to leave quarantine, her husband was informed that he, along with his 15-year-old son, would need to stay until August 24 due to “someone in the proximity of their room having tested positive.”
At that time the family had already tested negative nine times.
“When I checked out, I asked the personnel why my family was not leaving that day. Again the first response was ‘I don’t know.’ […] I was very angry and told them my son is a minor and I was entitled to know why he was not allowed to leave,” Cristina explained.
She then reported the incident to a police officer, lamenting that her family, who stayed adjacent to her room, had to stay “against their will” and without an official explanation.
“They kept on saying to write a letter to the director of the Health Bureau,” she said.
The Times has sought an opinion from a Macau-based lawyer on the matter.
According to Sérgio de Almeida Correia, the principles of necessity, proportionality and adequacy to the proposed objectives, contained in article 4 of Law 2/2004 were violated.
The legal expert noted that they were faced with the “lack of written orders, duly substantiated, indicating the reasons for the successive extensions of the quarantine and the foreseeable period of subjection to the measure.”
“When quarantine is extended without notification to the person concerned, the right of complaint and appeal and the control of arbitrariness cannot be carried out. Administrative guarantees are also violated, without the certainty that the illegal detention will not be extended successively, sine die, as new guests arrive at the hotel and test positive,” the lawyer adds.
The family said they have also faced language difficulties as the personnel had a hard time communicating with them in English.
The issue was not resolved even amid the husband needing to see a doctor as he was suffering from claustrophobia and panic attacks.
“My son called me asking me what he should do as his father is not well,” said Cristina.
“I asked for a doctor and [the personnel] told me that they had to evaluate first. He [just] continued asking questions,” she explained, adding that a doctor was only called after a threat that the situation may trigger mental health issues.
Set to leave today, the father and son duo had tested negative in all 13 tests. One of these tests was done in hospital on the day of consultation, and they had to wait four to five hours for the results.
“If my husband had a heart attack instead of a panic attack, he would be dead by now.
If the conditions of the hotel are as good as the government says, why are they so afraid? And if other people continue to test positive in other rooms around, does that mean they can never leave?” she questioned.
Further, according to the lawyer, “there is only a faceless order and a continuous crime of kidnapping committed by Macau public entities under the pretext of fighting the pandemic.”
