Statement: In some tribal villages of Madhya Pradesh, a “killer” fever has reportedly claimed about 100 lives over the last three weeks.\nCourses of Action:\nI. Immediately shift the residents of these affected villages to a non-infected area.\nII. The government should immediately send a medical squad to the affected area to restrict further spread of the disease and provide treatment.

Introduction / Context:
A sudden spike in deaths attributed to a “killer” fever across multiple villages signals a public-health emergency. In such emergencies, immediate containment and care are paramount. Two proposed courses are (I) temporary relocation from the hot zone and (II) rapid medical deployment. We must test what is necessary and proportionate to the stated risk.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• ~100 deaths in three weeks indicate a high case-fatality or severe care/access gaps.
• Transmission characteristics are unspecified; precautionary containment is prudent.
• Government has capacity to mobilise medical teams and logistics.

Concept / Approach:
Apply public-health principles: contain, care, and communicate. Where local exposure risks are high and care capacity is low, temporary relocation (I) reduces exposure and buys time; simultaneous medical response (II) stabilises the sick, initiates surveillance, and interrupts chains of transmission.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Dispatch medical squads with diagnostics, antipyretics/antimicrobials as indicated, IV fluids, PPE, and vector control kits.2) Set up triage and isolation areas; activate referral transport for severe cases.3) If local conditions (contaminated water, vector density, cramped housing) are acute, organise temporary relocation to safe camps with clean water and sanitation.4) Start surveillance: case definition, line-listing, contact tracing, and risk communication to residents.

Verification / Alternative check:
Medical deployment alone may be insufficient if the environment remains highly hazardous; relocation without medical care merely moves risk. Combining both maximises immediate risk reduction and care access.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I: relocation without treatment and tracing leaves ongoing morbidity. Only II: persistent exposure may sustain incidence. Either: treats them as substitutes though they are complementary. Neither: contradicts emergency norms.

Common Pitfalls:
Delaying action awaiting definitive lab identification; relocating without ensuring water/sanitation in camps; inadequate PPE and vector control.

Final Answer:
Both I and II follow.