(CN) — The United States’ response to the pandemic is a story of failed leadership, missed chances and untold tragedy. How did the law worsen this disaster? How can it help the country recover? Fifty legal experts tackled these questions in a comprehensive report released Tuesday.
Back in October, the world’s richest country won kudos from the world of academia. In a Global Health Security Index led by Johns Hopkins University, which looked at nations’ ability to prevent, detect and rapidly respond to epidemics, the U.S. ranked No. 1. out of 195 countries.
The index’s authors apparently believed because the federal government had prepared for a widespread viral outbreak—even conducting an exercise in August 2019 called “Crimson Contagion,” simulating a novel respiratory virus spreading from China across the globe—the preparation would easily be put into practice. The simulation predicted shortages of basic medical supplies, or personal protective equipment, during a global influenza pandemic
Skip ahead five months. It’s February and China’s in lockdown struggling to contain an outbreak of Covid-19, the respiratory disease caused by the novel coronavirus. A Department of Health and Human Services official warns his bosses he is alarmed about the scarcity of N95 masks, swabs and syringes. But they stop the Food and Drug Administration commissioner from telling companies to ramp up production because “such calls would alarm the industry and make the administration look unprepared,” the Wall Street Journal reported.
In late March, hospitals in New York were warning the public they did not have enough ventilators for all the Covid patients and stacking bodies out back in refrigerated trailers, as their staff recommissioned plastic garbage bags into protective gowns due to shortages of personal protective equipment, or PPE.
Every state had declared an emergency by then, giving their governors broad authority to issue directives to stifle the virus. The pandemic unleashed a torrent of litigation with business owners, churches, and citizens challenging state shutdown and mask orders as unconstitutional overreach.
Despite the pushback, the measures appeared to be working. In parlance that has become familiar to everyone, the restrictions flattened the curve of infections from March to May. Though as experts say in Tuesday’s report titled “Assessing Legal Responses to Covid-19,” it is difficult to disentangle the effects of specific requirements.
Then politics got in the way of public health. With tens of millions of people losing their jobs and filing for unemployment, President Donald Trump started leaning on states to reopen their economies.
“The quick removal of restrictions in many jurisdictions was prompted not by public health guidance, but rather by political pressure from President Trump and his supporters, protests organized by conservative groups, and a large number of lawsuits challenging stay-at-home orders and business closures,” wrote report contributor Lance Gable, a law professor at Wayne State University in Detroit.
Texas, Florida, Arizona and Georgia, all led by Republican governors, reopened quickly and were forced to put some restrictions back in place as their cases spiked.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott recently said hospitalizations and the state’s rate of positive Covid-19 tests have to decrease before he will let bars reopen. This week, Texas became the fourth state with more than 10,000 Covid-19 deaths, joining New York, New Jersey and California.
Bar owners in Austin brought a federal lawsuit against Abbott on June 30, claiming shutting them down is unconstitutional. Though courts have largely sided with governments in shutdown-order challenges, Gable said in the report states should clarify the scope of emergency powers to avoid these disputes in the future.
Gable told Courthouse News he believes states, not Congress, should address the issue through legislation.