Governing by Executive Order During the Covid-19 Pandemic: Preliminary Observations Concerning the Proper Balance Between Executive Orders and More Formal Rule Making

As the United States entered 2021, almost all fifty states were still operating under a state of emergency due to COVID-19 more than nine months later. Governors using emergency powers provided to them under their respective emergency disaster statutes and state constitutions continued to govern their state by executive order. These executive orders have had significant impacts on citizens’ everyday lives including stay-at-home orders, limits on non-essential gatherings, non-essential business closures and moratoriums on evictions. And these emergency orders have been opposed at almost every turn from citizens gathering in public protest shouting “Liberate Michigan,” to constitutional legal challenges to these orders. Even with three promising vaccines receiving emergency authorization at the time of this article’s submission, it will be months or longer before life returns to normal. Therefore, it becomes incumbent to ask the question whether governors should continue to wield this emergency power or whether state legislatures and/or state agencies should take on more responsibility. In answer to this question, this article concludes that governors should use executive orders in some measure as long as COVID-19 is being transmitted in their communities but not for all areas. Since COVID-19 is a highly contagious disease and is difficult to contain, governors need to be able to quickly and nimbly issue orders to curb transmission as long as there is a reasonable check on their power to do so. However, state legislatures and/or state agencies should enact emergency statutes or regulations following the more formal rule making process in areas that do not require immediate action such as requiring facial coverings in public spaces. This article draws its conclusion by examining three key areas. First, most governors have a meaningful check on their emergency powers from both the judiciary and the state legislature. Second, governors and litigants can learn from prior cases to ensure executive orders do not single out a group or unnecessarily burden another. Third, since some states have had success in enacting emergency regulations, statutes or guidelines concerning COVID-19, more states should follow suit

Feminist-Kaleckian Macroeconomic Policy for Developing Countries

This paper reviews evidence of the gender effects of globalization in developing economies. It then outlines a set of macroeconomic and trade policies to promote gender equity. The evidence suggests that while liberalization has expanded women's access to employment, the long-term goal of transforming gender inequalities remains unmet and appears unattainable without state intervention in markets. This paper sets forth some general principles that can produce greater gender equality, premised on shifting from economies that are profit led and export oriented to those that are wage led and full-employment oriented. The framework is Kaleckian in its focus on the relationship between the gender distribution of income and macroeconomic outcomes

Finishing the euchromatic sequence of the human genome

The sequence of the human genome encodes the genetic instructions for human physiology, as well as rich information about human evolution. In 2001, the International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium reported a draft sequence of the euchromatic portion of the human genome. Since then, the international collaboration has worked to convert this draft into a genome sequence with high accuracy and nearly complete coverage. Here, we report the result of this finishing process. The current genome sequence (Build 35) contains 2.85 billion nucleotides interrupted by only 341 gaps. It covers ∼99% of the euchromatic genome and is accurate to an error rate of ∼1 event per 100,000 bases. Many of the remaining euchromatic gaps are associated with segmental duplications and will require focused work with new methods. The near-complete sequence, the first for a vertebrate, greatly improves the precision of biological analyses of the human genome including studies of gene number, birth and death. Notably, the human enome seems to encode only 20,000-25,000 protein-coding genes. The genome sequence reported here should serve as a firm foundation for biomedical research in the decades ahead

Governing by Executive Order During the Covid-19 Pandemic: Preliminary Observations Concerning the Proper Balance Between Executive Orders and More Formal Rule Making

As the United States entered 2021, almost all fifty states were still operating under a state of emergency due to COVID-19 more than nine months later. Governors using emergency powers provided to them under their respective emergency disaster statutes and state constitutions continued to govern their state by executive order. These executive orders have had significant impacts on citizens’ everyday lives including stay-at-home orders, limits on non-essential gatherings, non-essential business closures and moratoriums on evictions. And these emergency orders have been opposed at almost every turn from citizens gathering in public protest shouting “Liberate Michigan,” to constitutional legal challenges to these orders. Even with three promising vaccines receiving emergency authorization at the time of this article’s submission, it will be months or longer before life returns to normal. Therefore, it becomes incumbent to ask the question whether governors should continue to wield this emergency power or whether state legislatures and/or state agencies should take on more responsibility. In answer to this question, this article concludes that governors should use executive orders in some measure as long as COVID-19 is being transmitted in their communities but not for all areas. Since COVID-19 is a highly contagious disease and is difficult to contain, governors need to be able to quickly and nimbly issue orders to curb transmission as long as there is a reasonable check on their power to do so. However, state legislatures and/or state agencies should enact emergency statutes or regulations following the more formal rule making process in areas that do not require immediate action such as requiring facial coverings in public spaces. This article draws its conclusion by examining three key areas. First, most governors have a meaningful check on their emergency powers from both the judiciary and the state legislature. Second, governors and litigants can learn from prior cases to ensure executive orders do not single out a group or unnecessarily burden another. Third, since some states have had success in enacting emergency regulations, statutes or guidelines concerning COVID-19, more states should follow suit

Doing More With Less: State Public Health Emergency Powers Post-Pandemic

Three years after COVID-19 arrived in the United States, many governors and public health officials are equipped with fewer—not more—public health emergency powers than at the start of the pandemic. This may seem counterintuitive, considering that this virus has killed more than 1.1 million Americans and counting. While public health emergency powers were stripped on the federal, state, and local level, this loss is most acutely felt at the state executive level. Some state legislatures passed laws banning state and local governments from implementing a mask or vaccine mandate, while others amended their state emergency disaster statutes to limit the scope and duration of these powers. With these powers stripped from the states’ executive branches, what are governors and public health officials to do when the next public health crisis comes their way? This Article discusses how these officials can maximize the public health emergency powers that remain at their disposal. This Article further explores other avenues a state’s executive branch may use to manage a public health emergency aside from those powers in a state disaster or public health emergency statute

Emerging recombinant noroviruses identified by clinical and waste water screening

Abstract Norovirus is estimated to cause 677 million annual cases of gastroenteritis worldwide, resulting in 210,000 deaths. As viral gastroenteritis is generally self-limiting, clinical samples for epidemiological studies only partially represent circulating noroviruses in the population and is biased towards severe symptomatic cases. As infected individuals from both symptomatic and asymptomatic cases shed viruses into the sewerage system at a high concentration, waste water samples are useful for the molecular epidemiological analysis of norovirus genotypes at a population level. Using Illumina MiSeq and Sanger sequencing, we surveyed circulating norovirus within Australia and New Zealand, from July 2014 to December 2016. Importantly, norovirus genomic diversity during 2016 was compared between clinical and waste water samples to identify potential pandemic variants, novel recombinant viruses and the timing of their emergence. Although the GII.4 Sydney 2012 variant was prominent in 2014 and 2015, its prevalence significantly decreased in both clinical and waste water samples over 2016. This was concomitant with the emergence of multiple norovirus strains, including two GII.4 Sydney 2012 recombinant viruses, GII.P4 New Orleans 2009/GII.4 Sydney 2012 and GII.P16/GII.4 Sydney 2012, along with three other emerging strains GII.17, GII.P12/GII.3 and GII.P16/GII.2. This is unusual, as a single GII.4 pandemic variant is generally responsible for 65–80% of all human norovirus infections at any one time and predominates until it is replaced by a new pandemic variant. In sumary, this study demonstrates the combined use of clinical and wastewater samples provides a more complete picture of norovirus circulating within the population