A very broad definition of "public health risk" would be to declare racism a public health risk. E.g., according to the Sacramento Bee, racism is a public health crisis, at time index 27:25 of the video. So this notion is not far fetched.
Sacramento deserves leaders who follow and uphold basic public safety recommendations. We deserve leaders who know not to use racial slurs. We deserve leaders who are allies and can look beyond their privilege to recognize that racism is real.
They talk about "racial equity in 2020" at about the 23:30 mark in the sacbee video. The kind of equity they're referring to is actually the Critical Race Theory definition:
Health equity is the value underlying a commitment to reduce and ultimately eliminate health disparities. It is explicitly mentioned in the Healthy People 2020 objectives. Health equity means social justice with respect to health and reflects the ethical and human rights concerns articulated previously. Health equity means striving to equalize opportunities to be healthy. In accord with the other ethical principles of beneficence (doing good) and nonmalfeasance (doing no harm), equity requires concerted effort to achieve more rapid improvements among those who were worse off to start, within an overall strategy to improve everyone’s health. Closing health gaps by worsening advantaged groups’ health is not a way to achieve equity. Reductions in health disparities (by improving the health of the socially disadvantaged) are the metric by which progress toward health equity is measured.
Health Equity -- New Discourses
With that in mind, check out this New York detention bill. It's intended for communicable diseases, but if "leaders" can re-define "racism" as a "public health risk," and if these folks can accuse anyone of being racist for anything, they can detain anyone for anything:
Is that a slippery slope? Perhaps. While slippery slopes are not valid arguments in a formal debate, they are perfectly valid for sake of mere discussion.
As Morrow points out (9:58), you don't even have to really connect racism specifically to a public health risk. If you want, you could just use a novel virus that has a poor testing protocol and you're done.
Basically, they get to use detention for what appears to be finite timeframes, but this is contingent on tests that can easily be manipulated. If they want to keep someone indefinitely, just keep testing them until they get a false positive, which appears to be 50:50 in some types of tests.
Something extremely bogus is going on. Was tested for covid four times today. Two tests came back negative, two came back positive. Same machine, same test, same nurse. Rapid antigen test from BD.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 13, 2020
And then there's this:
Please do your research, the test was a LFT and not a PCR.
— Lijnspook (@lijnspook) January 2, 2021
Watch the video.😇
LFT is not suited for testing food.
This experiment has no meaning
Hey, good point. Lets hope they don't use LFT tests when trying to get someone out of a public health detention situation. And lets hope they don't serve kiwi fruit in those detention facilities. And if they do, let's hope they don't use the two together in order to surreptitiously generate the paperwork for keeping someone in detention indefinitely.