Part one:
We talk to Henry T. Greely, J.D., is professor of law and professor by courtesy, of genetics at Stanford University, where he directs the Stanford Center for Law and the Biosciences and chairs the steering committee for the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics.
Covid-19 ‘immunity certificates’: practical and ethical conundrums
Covid-19 ‘immunity certificates’: practical and ethical conundrums
Nugget: German researchers have proposed testing 100,000 people for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, and giving “immunity certificates” to those who have these antibodies, which presumably make them resistant to reinfection. The United Kingdom has floated the idea of “Covid passports,” Italy is discussing the idea, and it is being raised in the U.S. as well.
Immunity certificates offer the enticing promise that an increasing number of people can stop sheltering in place and instead help the world revive. They could play an important role in the period before we have excellent treatments or an effective vaccine. But they raise issues about the science of Covid-19 immunity, about how such certificates would be provided and policed and, most important, about a country split between the free and the confined.
This kind of “quick fix” solution might seem attractive, but there are several unanswered questions.
1. Does the presence of antibodies make a person immune?
2. How long does the immunity last?
3. There is a 30% chance of false negatives, what effect will this have on immunity certification?
4. Who will do the certification?
This also raises the question of those who would like to be immune, but have not, because of prophylactic methods, been exposed. Will people flock to expose themselves, so that they can acquire Covid-19, and thus acquire immunity, at the risk of not surviving? Who in the population should be immune first? Health care workers? Food production workers? Others?
There is no developed methodology for implementing this.
Part two:
We talk with David Schultz, Professor in the political science department at Hamline University where he teaches classes in American politics, public policy and administration, and ethics. Schultz holds an appointment at the University of Minnesota law school and teaches election law, state constitutional law, and professional responsibility. He has authored/edited 30 books, 12 legal treatises, and more than 100 articles on topics including civil service reform, election law, eminent domain, constitutional law, public policy, legal and political theory, and the media and politics. In addition to 25+ years teaching, he has worked in government as a director of code enforcement and for a community action agency as an economic and housing planner.
We discuss Covid-19 and the Presidential Election: What if the States Picked the Electoral College Delegates?
https://schultzstake.blogspot.com/2020/04/covid-19-and-presidential-election-what.html
Many worry about several presidential election scenarios. One is that President Trump will postpone or cancel it. Alone he cannot do that because the date of federal elections is set by law as the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November. Alone the president cannot cancel or move this date, unless somehow the Supreme Court would rule that the National Emergencies Act would allow him to override a law. If it did, the Court would be going against the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s logic when it prevented Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers from issuing an executive order delaying the elections, ruling that the emergency powers given to him only allowed a setting aside of administrative rules and not statutes.
Postponing the presidential election also does not work for constitutional reasons. Section One of the Twentieth Amendment states that the term of the president shall end at noon on January 20. If there is no election, there is no president or vice-president after that date, with the vacancy then filled by then Article II, Section One, Clause 6 of the Constitution along with the Presidential Succession Act that would hand the presidency to the Speaker of the House, presumably Nancy Pelosi.
Others have proposed expanding vote by mail as an option for 2020. Congress is unlikely for partisan reasons to approve this, and even if it did it is not clear if all states have the infrastructure or capability to implement in time. There are also questions about security, potential fraud, and the federal government overruling state election bureaus and telling them how to administer federal elections. Other suggestions have been around extensions to the voting period. The idea of voting by mail is also fraught, because the Postal Service is underfunded, and may cease operation, something that Trump would like to see.
There is one final failsafe—instead of holding elections to choose the president, the states can go back and do what they originally did and what the Constitution allows—pick the electors themselves. This makes composition of the state legislatures extremely important. In 36 states, the legislatures are dominated by the Republicans.
2020 is a census year, and will lead to redistricting next year, but not before the Presidential election. But it is important to note that even local elections are important.
