Coronavirus Legal Powers

Since the coronavirus outbreak, reports from a number of countries have documented prejudice, racism, xenophobia and discrimination against people of Asian descent. Incidents include physical assault and beatings, violent bullying in schools, threats of anger, discrimination at school or in the workplace, and the use of derogatory language in news reports and on social media platforms. Since January, the media has reported alarming incidents of hate crimes in the UNITED Kingdom, the United States, Spain and Italy, targeting people of Asian descent who appear to be linked to COVID-19, among others. Senior U.S. government officials, including President Donald Trump, have stoked anti-China sentiment by calling the coronavirus a “Chinese virus” and, in an incident reported by a White House correspondent, a “Kung flu.” Anti-immigrant leaders such as Victor Orban in Hungary and Matteo Salvini in Italy have used the pandemic to whip up xenophobic sentiments. Health data is particularly sensitive and the publication of information on the Internet can pose a significant risk to the people concerned and in particular to people who are already in positions of vulnerability or marginalisation in society. Rights-based legal safeguards should govern the appropriate use and processing of personal health data. COVID-19 is an infectious disease caused by a novel coronavirus first identified in December 2019. Coronaviruses are a family of viruses known to cause respiratory infections. There is still no vaccine to prevent COVID-19 and no specific treatment for it, other than treating symptoms.

OCR has published guidelines examining legal standards and best practices to improve access to COVID-19 vaccination programs and ensure non-discrimination based on race, colour and national origin. Whether information is distributed through pamphlets, online information portals or in person at vaccine clinics, there is a legal obligation that COVID-19 vaccination programs are accessible and free of discriminatory barriers that limit a community`s ability to receive vaccines and booster vaccines. The new guidelines ensure that companies covered by civil rights laws understand their obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, laws that require government-supported health care providers and systems to ensure fair and equitable access to vaccines. Recipients of federal funding include state and local agencies, hospitals, and health care providers who administer vaccines and booster shots. In Italy, prisoners in more than 40 prisons protested fears of contagion in overcrowded facilities and the ban on family visits and supervised release during the coronavirus pandemic. In response, the authorities for the first time approved the use of email and Skype for contacts between prisoners and their families and for educational purposes, and announced a plan to release prisoners under 18 months in prison and place them under house arrest. Italy`s leading prisoners` rights organization, Antigone, estimated that this could benefit a maximum of 3,000 prisoners, while the prison system is about 14,000 above its capacity. The organization called for more comprehensive measures to ensure the release of more detainees, including especially older prisoners and those with vulnerable health profiles. Civil society organisations have also called for alternatives to detention for all those currently detained in immigration detention centres in Italy, as the risk of infection has increased and there is no prospect of deportation. The global pandemic has created many legal challenges in the United States, including several court cases with others expected. In recent days, legal proceedings have been initiated, among others: on March 12, Bahrain`s King Hamad bin Isa Al-Khalifa reportedly pardoned 901 prisoners “on humanitarian grounds, in the context of the current circumstances”,probably in connection with the coronavirus outbreak. The Interior Ministry announced that another 585 prisoners would be released and sentenced to non-custodial sentences.

The president and the 50 governors have declared a public health emergency to counter the spread of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19). As researchers compete to develop vaccines, officials are implementing physical distancing, including ordering stay-at-home, restrict travel, and close non-essential stores (see eFigure in the supplement). To limit cross-border spread, more than a dozen states have adopted mandatory quarantines for intergovernmental travelers. Some models suggest that physical distancing should last 3 months to mitigate peak effects on health systems, and that it may be required intermittently for 12 to 18 months.1 What are the legal powers of governments? What role do the courts play? How can public health be reconciled with personal and economic rights? This document provides an overview of human rights concerns arising from the coronavirus outbreak, builds on examples of previous government responses, and recommends how governments and other actors can respect human rights in their response. In Lebanon, the spokesman for the country`s importers of medical supplies told Human Rights Watch that because of the financial crisis that prevented them from importing the necessary goods, the country no longer needed gloves, masks, gowns, and other supplies to cope with the coronavirus outbreak. She added that importers of medical supplies have brought in only $10 million of the $120 million in goods they have been looking for since October, and that almost all transactions have been frozen since February due to the country`s current economic crisis.