Researching Law Fall 2020 - Flipbook - Page 7
VO L 31 | NO 2 | FA LL 2020
Whether it is international or
domestic, the response to COVID
is complex and requires getting
participation on many levels. This
includes reaching an agreement
on what must be tracked, getting
consensus on the reporting,
balancing costs and benefits of
raising the alarm, harmonizing
the domestic and the global, and
sharing resources.
Examples abound of countries
that responded to COVID-19
very differently from neighboring
countries and others around the
world. Some places, like China,
implemented a strict lockdown and
put into place a heavily policed,
gradual reopening. China also
required frequent testing and
mandatory hospitalizations.
There have been multiple success
stories from around the world.
Only three days after the WHO
declared COVID-19 a public health
emergency, New Zealand began
introducing disease prevention
measures and continued
strengthening them in the
following weeks. The country
progressively tightened restrictions
from late February through
March, guided by technical advice,
outbreak updates, and risk
assessments from the WHO. By
June, the country had gone more
than three weeks without any new
infections. In late June, when New
Zealand authorities detected
several imported cases, they were
isolated and their contacts traced
to reduce the transmission risk.
The United States responded to
COVID in a much different way
than other countries. In general,
the government left responses
to the pandemic to the state and
local level, as public health law
assigns many responsibilities to
states rather than to the federal
government. As a result, responses
across the U.S. have been varied
and inconsistent. Lockdowns in
certain individual states and
municipalities proved to be
effective. In contrast, other states
faced demonstrations, lack of
testing, shortages of equipment in
hospitals, and the continued
violations of safety guidelines with
parties and other gatherings.
The U.S. has faced severe
challenges that come with a highly
privatized health care system,
including complications with
testing, equipment sharing, and
paying for care. There is also a
greater emphasis on individual
privacy in the U.S., both in law and
American culture. With a privatized
health care system, people worry
about losing their jobs and their
health insurance. One way to
combat this, Heimer notes, is by
strengthening public health powers
and federal emergency powers.
There is no doubt that COVID-19
has created unprecedented and
significant impacts in the United
States. The U.S. was hit harder than
many other countries worldwide,
with a quarter of the world’s
confirmed COVID-19 cases and
deaths. In addition to the sheer
number of cases and effects on
health, the pandemic has also had
a significant impact on the
economic and legal aspects of life.
Just as SARS presented an
opportunity to learn lessons at the
global level, Heimer is hopeful that
there will be some lessons learned
at the domestic level due to
COVID-19. How can the U.S.
learn lessons analogous to those
the WHO learned during SARS?
One lesson, according to Heimer,
is that we need an augmentation
of the federal government’s
emergency powers.
“The federal government controls
the purse strings, including
“The disease
challenges on the
global level are
mirrored domestically.
There are conflicts
between health and
the economy. And
there are issues
about the movement
of populations and
the transmissions of
diseases, and how
you control borders,
whether those are
national borders, state
borders, or borders of
municipalities.”
7