fbpx

COVID-19

Articles and publications written by the CCC about the COVID-19 Coronavirus Pandemic.

WHO Reverses Course, Now Advises Against Use of ‘Punishing’ Lockdowns

Even as the WHO calls on nations to refrain from imposing lockdowns, many governments continue to use this strategy.

For months, an overwhelming majority of the planet’s population has been subject to cruel and unnerving lockdowns: businesses closed, travel restricted, and social gatherings kept to a minimum.

The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic have sunk our economies, kept loved ones apart, derailed funerals, and made personal and economic liberty a casualty as much as our health. One report states it could cost us $82 trillion globally over the next five years – roughly the same as our yearly global GDP.

Many of these initial lockdowns were justified by policy recommendations by the World Health Organization.

The WHO’s director-general Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, writing in a strategy update in April, called on nations to continue lockdowns until the disease was under control.

But now, more than six months since lockdowns became a favored political tool of global governments, the WHO is calling for their swift end.

Dr. David Nabarro, the WHO’s Special Envoy on COVID-19, told Spectator UK’s Andrew Neil last week that politicians have been wrong in using lockdowns as the “primary control method” to combat COVID-19.

“Lockdowns just have one consequence that you must never ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer,” said Nabarro.

Dr. Michael Ryan, Director of the WHO’s Health Emergencies Programme, offered a similar sentiment.

“What we want to try to avoid – and sometimes it’s unavoidable and we accept that – but what we want to try and avoid is these massive lockdowns that are so punishing to communities, to society and to everything else,” said Dr. Ryan, speaking at a briefing in Geneva. 

These are stunning statements from an organization that has been a key authority and moral voice responsible for handling the global response to the pandemic.

Cues from the WHO have underpinned each and every national and local lockdown, threatening to push 150 million people into poverty by the end of the year.

As Nabarro stated, the vast majority of the people harmed by these lockdowns have been the worse off.

We all know people who have lost their businesses, lost work, and seen their life savings go up in smoke. That’s especially true for those who work in the service and hospitality industries, which have been decimated by lockdown policies.

And even as the WHO calls on nations to refrain from imposing lockdowns, many governments continue to use this strategy. Schools in many US states remain closed, bars and restaurants are off-limits, and large gatherings–apart from social justice protests–are condemned and shut down by force.

The effects of the prolonged lockdowns on young people are now becoming more clear. A recent study from Edinburgh University says keeping schools shut down will increase the number of deaths due to COVID-19. Added to that, the study says lockdowns “prolong the epidemic, in some cases resulting in more deaths long-term.”

If we want to avoid any more harm, we should immediately end these disastrous policies. Any fresh calls to impose lockdowns should now be viewed with the utmost skepticism.

It’s time for the madness to end. Not only because the World Health Organization says so, but because our very lives depend on it.

As the doctors and scientists stated in the Grand Barrington Declaration signed this month in Massachusetts, the “physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies” have themselves caused devastating effects on both short and long-term health.

We cannot continue to risk our health and well-being in the long-term by shutting in our economies and our people in the short-term. That’s the only way forward if we seek to recover from the ruinous effects of government policy surrounding COVID-19.

Originally published here.

Western Standard

CANZUK treaty a potential economic vaccine to the Covid depression

David Clement writes that the potential CANZUK treaty would give Canada, NZ, Australia, and the UK the benefits of the EU’s common market, without the bureaucratic overreach that led to Brexit.

The toll of COVID-19 on the lives and livelihood of Canadians has been devastating. Canada’s economy has taken a huge hit, and our fiscal position is set to decline from bad to worse. To counter that, Canada needs a pro-growth strategy that boldly takes us in a new direction.

One policy that would help enable Canada’s growth and boost our nation’s morale is CANZUK. CANZUK is a proposed free movement and free trade deal that would unite Canada, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. 

Specifically, the agreement would allow for free trade, free movement, and foreign policy coordination between the member states. In a nutshell, CANZUK represents all of the benefits of a European Union-style common market, without the negatives that drove Brexit. CANZUK would increase trade and movement through a common market, without an overreaching central government, multinational regulatory board, and the negative externalities that come from a common currency. 

Citizens of each of these nations would be able to make investments, cross borders, take up residence, study, and sell their products.

For economic growth, CANZUK would turbocharge the economy, and we know this from the European example. Prior to the creation of the EU common market in 1993, European free trade was estimated to increase GDP by 4.5-6.5 per cent. Luckily for Europeans, those projections fell short, with GDP growth from EU free trade increasing GDP growth by 8-9 per cent. And while the economy of CANZUK will be smaller than the economy of the EU, it isn’t a stretch to forecast similar GDP growth as a result of a CANZUK deal. Even at half or a quarter of that growth, CANZUK would be great for the Canadian economy. And, unlike in the EU, CANZUK doesn’t come with the regulatory barriers of a central government, like in Brussels. 

A CANZUK trading bloc wouldn’t just interconnect these four countries whose collective GDP is more than $7 trillion. A CANZUK deal would allow for these four countries to punch above their weight on the world stage, which is increasingly more important with the rise of China, and the growing desire to decouple relations with Beijing. 

Together, the CANZUK bloc could be more aggressive in their free trade push in Asia, specifically with target markets like Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Taiwan. Together, CANZUK would allow for each country to recommit to free trade internationally, without further deepening ties with China and the Chinese Communist Party. In the post-COVID world of geoeconomic statecraft, CANZUK puts Canada on a more solid footing.

In regards to labour, CANZUK would provide immense benefits to Canadian employees, and Canadian employers, because it comes with a professional designation and licensing recognition that would connect more Canadians with opportunities around the world. 

As a result of CANZUK, Canadian professionals could freely take jobs in each of the other countries, and employers could attract talent from abroad. Take mining for example. If our mining sector was struggling, Canadian resource workers could take open positions in Australia’s large mining sector. Laid off Canadian oil and gas workers could take their experience to the UK’s resource sector in the North Sea. And of course, all of this could run the other way to the benefit of Canadian employers. 

On mobility, CANZUK would allow for hassle-free tourism between member states and would give retirees easy access to different destinations for their retirement. It would open up Canadian universities to students from abroad and would put member state universities within reach for Canadians. 

CANZUK would allow for better collaboration on foreign policy matters, providing Canada with a more comprehensive diplomatic alliance and complementing our existing agreements in NATO. Canada would continue to be a favorite nation on the world stage.

For those who aren’t familiar with CANZUK, the concept might sound far-fetched, but when over 13,000 citizens of the four countries were polled, respondents in each prospective member state overwhelmingly supported the idea of a free movement agreement. Kiwis at 83 per cent, Canadians at 76 per cent, Australians at 73 per cent, and the British at 68 per cent.

While it may be fashionable to use the pandemic as an opportunity to turn Canada inward, doing so would be poor economic policy. CANZUK gives us the opportunity to shift in the opposite direction, and recommit ourselves to a more global, and more interconnected, Canada. 

David Clement is a columnist with the Western Standard and the North American Affairs Manager at the Consumer Choice Center

Originally published here.

Agefi

Nous n’avons pas besoin de plus d’impôts pour réagir à la crise du COVID-19

La crise du COVID-19 continue et les fonds anti-crise se gonflent. Afin de proposer une relance directe, quelques pays européens prennent la décision raisonnable de réduire les charges fiscales, tandis que d’autres veulent les augmenter. Il est évident qu’une fiscalité simplifiée et réduite donnerait le boost nécessaire aux consommateurs et aux entreprises. Comment convaincre les décideurs de changer de route?

Il n’y a rien d’incroyable à déclarer que la crise sanitaire du COVID-19 a permis à beaucoup de bords politiques d’imposer des propositions politiques qui nécessitent une crise pour convaincre l’opinion public. Inimaginable il y a un an, le Conseil européen a accepté de faire un emprunt européen  et de lever des taxes européennes. Nous voilà en début d’automne avec un débat politique bien changé et une discussion de solidarité qui nous rappelle la crise de 2008.

En plein milieu de la dernière crise financière, les décideurs politiques demandaient aux citoyens de faire un effort. Taxe de crise spéciale, augmentation de l’impôt sur le revenu, taxe retenue à la source (qui a frappé de façon inéquitable les différents épargnants), puis augmentation de la TVA en 2014 de 15 à 17%. En même temps, l’endettement de l’Etat central est restée bien en-dessus des 20% du PIB (qui représente plus que le double de la celle du début du siècle). Il s’avère que l’augmentation des moyens de l’Etat central ne s’est pas fait en coordination avec une rigueur budgétaire accrue. On a pu observer ce phénomène depuis les années 2000 jusqu’à aujourd’hui.

L’Allemagne a au contraire décidé d’une réduction temporaire de la TVA jusqu’au 1er janvier, de 19 à 15%, respectivement de 7 à 5% pour le taux réduit. Depuis ce mois-ci, les consommateurs irlandais bénéficient d’une réduction de la TVA de 23 à 21%. Sachant  que la taxe sur la valeur ajoutée est la taxe la plus injuste pour les consommateurs, pourquoi ne pas mettre en place une pareille mesure au Luxembourg ?

l convient également de comprendre deux leçons économiques importants. Premièrement, d’après les travaux de  Laffer, nous savons qu’une réduction d’impôts ne coïncide pas forcément avec une réduction des recettes. Deuxièmement, il est important de savoir que des réduction d’impôts sans des réductions de dépenses n’auront que peu d’effets.. 

Il convient de rappeler que l’Etat en tant que tel n’est pas une entité génératrice de richesse. Pour financer ses activités, il doit puiser des ressources dans le secteur privé. Ce faisant, il affaiblit le processus de création de richesses et compromet les perspectives de croissance économique réelle.

Comme l’Etat n’est pas une entité génératrice de richesse, toute réduction d’impôts alors que les dépenses publiques continuent d’augmenter ne va pas soutenir une véritable croissance économique. Or, la relance budgétaire pourrait “fonctionner” si le flux d’épargne réelle est suffisamment important pour soutenir, c’est-à-dire financer, les activités de l’Etat tout en permettant un taux de croissance des activités du secteur privé. Si la baisse des impôts s’accompagne d’une diminution des dépenses publiques, les citoyens auront plus de moyens de réactiver la création de richesse. Ainsi nous aurons une véritable reprise économique. 

Cette logique s’applique à la réduction des impôts des entreprises, qui surtout en temps de crise, n’est pas une mesure populaire. Pourtant, ceux qui attaquent une telle réduction se trompent. Ils s’appuient sur une vision à somme nulle du monde dans laquelle les gains des uns sont considérés comme un préjudice pour les autres. Ils supposent que les propriétaires de sociétés profitent de la quasi-totalité des avantages des réductions d’impôts sur les sociétés. Ils s’appuient sur des données très faussées pour étayer leurs arguments ainsi qu’une mauvaise compréhension du fonctionnement de l’économie.

La vision à somme nulle ignore le fait que les accords volontaires de marché profitent à tous les participants. Par conséquent, l’augmentation des échanges commerciaux mutuellement bénéfiques, tout comme la réduction de la fiscalité, profite à la fois aux acheteurs et aux vendeurs. En revanche, punir les vendeurs par des taxes plus élevées les incite également à faire moins avec leurs ressources au service qu’ils rendent aux autres.

La réduction de l’impôt sur les sociétés permet d’améliorer  les techniques de production, la technologie et le montant des investissements en capital, ce qui accroît la productivité et les revenus des travailleurs. Cette réduction augmente les incitatifs à la prise de risque et à l’esprit d’entreprise au service des consommateurs. Cela réduit les importantes distorsions causées par l’impôt, et ces changements profitent aux  travailleurs et aux consommateurs.

Les plans de recouvrement centralisées montreront très peu de résultats, car l’Etat, dans sa structure centralisée, est incapable de savoir ce que les gens veulent réellement. Si nous voulons combattre les effets des fermetures liées au COVID-19, il faut libérer les capacités entrepreneuriales des citoyens, et réduire les obstacles réglementaires auquels les entreprises font face.

First a free lunch, then a freed-up lunch

If we are going to nudge people back to restaurants, let’s make the food service industry fun again

According to a recent survey of restaurant owners, more than 29 per cent of food-service operators can’t turn a profit under current social distancing restrictions, while 60 per cent said that if things continue, they’ll have to permanently close after 90 days.

Under normal conditions, the food service industry employs 1.2 million Canadians, which makes this doomsday scenario truly frightening. Short-term mass restaurant failures would certainly take a toll, but the long-term impact would also be devastating. At some point or other, most young people rely on the food service industry for their entry into the workforce. It also provides flexible work for many older Canadians. The impact of eliminating these employment opportunities would be hard to measure but clearly would not be good.

David Clement: First a free lunch, then a freed-up lunch

What can policymakers do to get Canadians eating at restaurants again? We could, as some have suggested, follow the lead of the U.K.’s Eat Out To Help Out campaign. For the month of August, the British government provided a 50 per cent discount, to a limit of £10 per diner, on food and soft drinks every Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday for restaurant-goers who ate in.

The goal was to provide a gentle nudge to consumers to alleviate their concerns about eating at restaurants and to give participating restaurants a revenue boost. Take-up was impressive, with more than 64 million meals being claimed over the first three weeks. On top of that, some major chains have said that they will honour the Monday-Wednesday 50 per cent discount moving forward, without government assistance, bearing the cost themselves.

Could it work in Canada? Possibly, but it largely depends on what we are “nudging” consumers back to. Some of us aren’t particularly excited about returning to $9 pints of generic beer and $17 cheeseburgers. That isn’t a slight against Canada’s food service industry; it’s a statement about the constrained environment legislators, at all levels, have created via over-regulation.

If we are going to nudge people back to restaurants, let’s make the food service industry fun again. Some simple changes in government policy could go a long way to creating a much more dynamic and ultimately fun environment for consumers, which will help make these businesses profitable once again.

Starting with alcohol, Canadian provinces should remove minimum pricing on alcoholic beverages and allow for restaurants to order directly from producers, rather than be required to order through provincial liquor control boards. Opening up the pricing model would allow for more competition — and possibly even higher margins on alcohol once bureaucracy can be side-stepped — while better serving consumers. Removing the liquor control board as the middle man would help combat inflated prices and drastically reduce costs for restaurants.

The provinces should also repeal their open-container laws and allow for outdoor alcohol consumption, something that is commonplace all over Europe. This change would allow for licensed restaurants to sell to-go drinks for those who are enjoying what is left of our summer months. Should I be able to enjoy a beer while taking a walk through a park? Of course. Should a licensed restaurant or bar be allowed to sell me that beer? Why on earth not?

Beyond alcohol, restaurants and bars should be allowed to incorporate non-smokable cannabis products into their menu offerings. If I can order a beer at a bar, I should be able to order a cannabis beverage. Giving cannabis consumers a legal commercial setting in which to consume beverages or edibles gives those consumers something that has never before been possible, while opening restaurants up to an entirely new customer base. New product offerings of cannabis beverages and edibles would be easy to implement. All that provincial authorities would have to do is roll these products into existing server licenses such as Smart Serve. If we can trust servers to serve alcohol, we can trust them to serve cannabis products.

For food, the elimination of supply management would be a major long-term help to both restaurants and consumers. The quota and tariff system that restricts the market for chicken, dairy, eggs and turkey artificially inflates restaurants’ costs and get passed along to consumers via higher prices. We know that supply management is a backwards policy that pushes people under the poverty line by inflating grocery bills upwards of $500 per year per family. Allowing for competition for these products would go a long way to reducing costs for the food service industry.

With the end of summer upon us and colder temperatures on the horizon, the clock is ticking for policymakers to breathe life back into the food service sector. If we are going to nudge people back to restaurants, let’s make restaurants fun and affordable again. Simple changes could go a long way to avoiding mass restaurant bankruptcies.

Originally published here.

The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Scrapping COVID Patents: PM Johnson needs to resist populist calls

London, UK –  In a report published today by the House of Commons International Trade Committee, Members of Parliament suggested that the UK enact compulsory licensing for COVID-19 treatments. Under compulsory licensing laws, the government has the power to revoke patent rights from innovators and companies if a discovery they made provides treatment or protection related to a national health emergency. Fred Roeder, Health Economist and Managing Director of the Consumer Choice Center warns that eroding intellectual property will end up harming patients, and will hurt the UK’s chances of accessing a cure or vaccine:

“Compulsory licensing is threatening to move the goalposts on how intellectual property rights are protected. If domestic and foreign companies are prevented from retaining their patent licenses, this could hinder the production and supply of essential goods to the UK further than they already are. A compulsory licensing bill could place even more barriers for pharmaceutical innovators, which could discourage these kinds of companies from investing or listing their drugs in the UK.

There are other solutions to ensure easy access to vaccines and drugs. For example, mutual recognition of FDA and EMA approvals and fast-tracking some types of medicines would do a lot of good. In order to be prepared for the next pandemic, we need to increase, not curb, incentives for innovation. Right now we need to do everything that makes pharmaceutical research more agile – Introducing compulsory licensing on COVID drugs and vaccines is not the right way. Any help it provides in the short term will jeopardize our ability to tackle this health crisis in the long run,” concludes Roeder.

Originally published here.

The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Inside Sources Logo

Coronavirus Will Blow Up Our Legal System, but a Liability Shield Will Help

As customers slowly trickle back into stores and workers punch back in at reopened businesses, there’s one thought on all our minds: caution.

Protective plastic shields and screens, face masks and gloves are a new reality, and it is a small price to pay for coming out of state-mandated lockdowns.

But months into the all-encompassing coronavirus pandemic, there is another cost many entrepreneurs and administrators fear: future legal bills.

While voluntary precautions will be plentiful in every situation where a customer, student or worker is getting back out in the world, the nature of the virus means it is almost certain that someone, somewhere, will catch the virus. That means huge potential legal ramifications if a person wants to hold an institution or business liable.

There is already a demonstrable lawsuit epidemic. Between March and May of this year, more than 2,400 COVID-related lawsuits have been filed in federal and state courts. These cases are likely to blow up our legal system as we know it, elevating accusations of blame and clogging every level of our courts that will keep judges and lawyers busy for some time.

That is why the idea of a liability shield for schools, businesses and organizations has taken up steam.

In a recent letter to congressional leaders, 21 governors, all Republicans, called on both houses of Congress to include liability protections in the next round of coronavirus relief.

“To accelerate reopening our economies as quickly and as safely as possible, we must allow citizens to get back to their livelihoods and make a living for their families without the threat of frivolous lawsuits,” the governors wrote.

While a liability shield will not give cover to institutions that are negligent or reckless, and reasonably so, it would ensure that blatantly frivolous or unfounded lawsuits are not allowed to go forward.

For the average entrepreneur or school administrator, that would help alleviate some of the worries that are keeping many of these instructions closed or severely restricted.

No one wants customers or workers catching the virus in these environments, but creating 100 percent COVID-free zones would be next to impossible, a fact many scientists are ready to acknowledge. That’s why state governors, lawmakers and business leaders want to ensure that our states can open back up, but be cognizant of the risk.

There is still plenty of uncertainty related to the transmission of the virus, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has pointed out, and that is why a liability shield — at least for those who follow health and safety recommendations — makes sense. Businesses and schools that willfully endanger citizens through negligence though, should rightfully be held liable.

This is the idea currently being debated in the nation’s capital, as Senate Republicans have stated they want a liability shield to avoid a lawsuit contagion.

Unfortunately, the idea is likely to be mired in a toxic partisan death spiral. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York decries such a plan as “legal immunity for big corporations” and reporting on the topic has resembled such.

But these protections would most benefit small businesses and schools that follow health recommendations and still find themselves the subject of lawsuits.

It is no secret that many attorneys see a potential payday in the wake of the pandemic. There are already hundreds of law firms pitching “coronavirus lawyers” and many have reassigned entire teams and departments to focus on providing legal advice and counsel for COVID-19 cases.

And much like in consumer fraud cases before the pandemic, a favorite tool of coronavirus tort lawyers will be large class-action lawsuits that seek huge payouts. These are the cases that usually end up lining the pockets of legal firms instead of legitimately harmed plaintiffs, as a recent Jones Day report finds. And that does not even speak to whether or not these cases have merit or not.

In debating the next level of pandemic relief for Americans, including a liability shield would be a great measure of confidence for responsible and cautious businesses and institutions in our country.

Whether it is the local community college or bakery, we must all recognize that assigning blame for virus contraction will be a frequent topic of concern. But those accusations must be founded, and be the result of outright harmful and negligent behavior, not just because students are back in class or customers are once again buying cakes.

A liability shield for the responsible citizens of our country is not only a good idea but necessary.

Originally published here.

The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Waco Tribune-Herald

GOP bill would deter frivolous COVID lawsuits

As customers slowly trickle back into stores and workers punch back in at reopened businesses, one thought dominates all our minds: caution.

Protective plastic shields and screens, face masks and gloves are a new reality, and it is a small price to pay for coming out of state-mandated lockdowns. But months into the all-encompassing coronavirus pandemic, there is another cost many entrepreneurs and administrators fear: future legal bills.

While voluntary precautions will be plentiful in every situation where a customer, student or worker is getting back out in the world, the nature of the virus means it is almost certain that someone, somewhere, will catch the virus. That means huge potential legal ramifications if a person wants to hold an institution or business liable.

A demonstrable lawsuit epidemic already exists. Between March and May of this year, more than 2,400 COVID-related lawsuits have been filed in federal and state courts. These cases are likely to blow up the legal system as we know it, elevating accusations of blame, clogging every level of our courts and keeping judges and lawyers busy for some time.

That is why the idea of a liability shield for schools, businesses and organizations has taken up steam. In a recent letter to congressional leaders, 21 governors, all Republicans, called on both houses of Congress to include liability protections in the next round of coronavirus relief.

“To accelerate reopening our economies as quickly and as safely as possible, we must allow citizens to get back to their livelihoods and make a living for their families without the threat of frivolous lawsuits,” the governors wrote.

While a liability shield will not give cover to institutions that are negligent or reckless, and reasonably so, it would ensure that blatantly frivolous or unfounded lawsuits are not allowed to go forward. For the average entrepreneur or school administrator, this would help alleviate some of the worries that are keeping many institutions and businesses closed or severely restricted.

No one wants customers or workers catching the virus in these environments, but creating 100 percent COVID-free zones would be next to impossible, a fact many scientists are ready to acknowledge. That’s why state governors, lawmakers and business leaders want to ensure that our states can open back up, yet be cognizant of the risk.

There is still plenty of uncertainty related to transmission of the virus, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has pointed out, and that is why a liability shield — at least for those who follow health and safety recommendations — makes sense. Businesses and schools that willfully endanger citizens through negligence, though, should rightfully be held liable. This is the idea currently being debated in the nation’s capital, as Senate Republicans have stated they want a liability shield to avoid a lawsuit contagion.

Unfortunately, the idea is likely to be mired in a toxic partisan death spiral. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York decries such a plan as “legal immunity for big corporations” and national reporting on the topic has suggested as much.

But these protections would most benefit small businesses and schools that follow health recommendations and still find themselves the subject of lawsuits. It’s no secret that many attorneys see a potential payday in the wake of the pandemic. Already hundreds of law firms are pitching “coronavirus lawyers.”

And much as in consumer fraud cases before the pandemic, a favorite tool of coronavirus tort lawyers will be large class-action lawsuits that seek huge payouts. These are the cases that usually end up lining the pockets of legal firms instead of legitimately harmed plaintiffs, as a recent Jones Day law firm report finds. And that does not even speak to whether these cases have merit or not.

Whether it’s the local community college or bakery, we must all recognize that assigning blame for virus contraction will be a frequent topic of concern. But those accusations must be founded, and be the result of outright harmful and negligent behavior, not just because students are back in class or customers are once again buying cakes. A liability shield for the responsible citizens of our country is not only a good idea but necessary.

Yaël Ossowski is deputy director of the Consumer Choice Center. This article was published in the Waco Tribune-Herald.

RESPONSIBLE BUSINESSES AND SCHOOLS NEED COVID-19 LIABILITY SHIELDS

A Liability Shield For Small Businesses And Schools

Part of this proposal is a liability shield for small businesses and schools, to protect them from unreasonable lawsuits related to COVID-19.

Consumer Choice Center Deputy Director Yaël Ossowski responded: “The nature of the virus means it is almost certain that someone, somewhere, will catch the virus. That means huge potential legal ramifications if a person wants to hold an institution or business liable,” he wrote in the Detroit Times.

“There is already a demonstrable lawsuit epidemic. These cases are likely to blow up our legal system as we know it, elevating accusations of blame and clogging every level of our courts that will keep judges and lawyers busy for some time.

“That’s why responsible businesses and schools that follow federal recommendations on health and safety should not be subject to outrageous lawsuits that bring our society to a halt,” said Ossowski. “Only legitimate lawsuits, based on some measure of negligence or recklessness, should be heard in our nation’s courts.”

“For the average entrepreneur or school administrator, a liability shield would help alleviate some of the worries that are keeping many of these institutions closed or severely restricted,” he added.

“Stopping the coming wave of unfounded and frivolous lawsuits will be important if we want to actually identify citizens and consumers who have been harmed by institutions that have not taken the right precautions. That’s why a liability shield is necessary for getting our country back on the right track,” concluded Ossowski.

Learn more about Consumer Choice Center’s #LegalReform campaign here

Originally published here.

The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

The Detroit News

Responsible businesses need COVID-19 liability shields

As customers slowly trickle back into stores and workers punch back in at reopened businesses, there’s one thought on all our minds: caution.

Protective plastic shields and screens, face masks and gloves are a new reality, and it is a small price to pay for coming out of state-mandated lockdowns.

But months into the all-encompassing coronavirus pandemic, there is another cost many entrepreneurs and administrators fear: future legal bills. 

While voluntary precautions will be plentiful in every situation where a customer, student or worker is getting back out in the world, the nature of the virus means it is almost certain that someone, somewhere, will catch the virus. That means huge potential legal ramifications if a person wants to hold an institution or business liable.

In this April 15, 2020, file photo, two people walk past a closed sign at a retail store in Chicago.Nam Y. Huh, AP

There is already a demonstrable lawsuit epidemic. Between March and May of this year, more than 2,400 COVID-related lawsuits have been filed in federal and state courts. These cases are likely to blow up our legal system as we know it, elevating accusations of blame and clogging every level of our courts that will keep judges and lawyers busy for some time.

That is why the idea of a liability shield for schools, businesses and organizations has taken up steam.

In a recent letter to congressional leaders, 21 governors, all Republicans, called on both houses of Congress to include liability protections in the next round of coronavirus relief.

“To accelerate reopening our economies as quickly and as safely as possible, we must allow citizens to get back to their livelihoods and make a living for their families without the threat of frivolous lawsuits,” the governors wrote.

While a liability shield will not give cover to institutions that are negligent or reckless, and reasonably so, it would ensure that blatantly frivolous or unfounded lawsuits are not allowed to go forward.

For the average entrepreneur or school administrator, that would help alleviate some of the worries that are keeping many of these institutions closed or severely restricted.

No one wants customers or workers catching the virus in these environments, but creating 100% COVID-free zones would be next to impossible, a fact many scientists are ready to acknowledge. That’s why state governors, lawmakers and business leaders want to ensure that our states can open back up, but be cognizant of the risk. 

There is still plenty of uncertainty related to the transmission of the virus, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has pointed out, and that is why a liability shield — at least for those who follow health and safety recommendations — makes sense. Businesses and schools that willfully endanger citizens through negligence though, should rightfully be held liable.

This is the idea currently being debated in the nation’s capital, as Senate Republicans have stated they want a liability shield to avoid a lawsuit contagion.

Unfortunately, the idea is likely to be mired in a toxic partisan death spiral. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York decries such a plan as “legal immunity for big corporations” and reporting on the topic has resembled such. 

But these protections would most benefit small businesses and schools that follow health recommendations and still find themselves the subject of lawsuits. 

It is no secret that many attorneys see a potential payday in the wake of the pandemic. There are already many law firms pitching “coronavirus lawyers” and many have reassigned entire teams and departments to focus on providing legal advice and counsel for COVID-19 cases. 

And much like in consumer fraud cases before the pandemic, a favorite tool of coronavirus tort lawyers will be large class-action lawsuits that seek huge payouts. These are the cases that usually end up lining the pockets of legal firms instead of legitimately harmed plaintiffs, as a recent Jones Day report finds. And that does not even speak to whether or not these cases have merit or not.

In debating the next level of pandemic relief for Americans, including a liability shield would be a great measure of confidence for responsible and cautious businesses and institutions in our country. 

Whether it is the local community college or bakery, we must all recognize that assigning blame for virus contraction will be a frequent topic of concern. But those accusations must be founded, and be the result of outright harmful and negligent behavior, not just because students are back in class or customers are once again buying cakes.

A liability shield for the responsible citizens of our country is not only a good idea but necessary.

Originally published in the Detroit Times here.

The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

The WTO is Missing In Action on COVID

According to the World Trade Organisation (WTO)’s latest report to the United Nationès High-level Political Forum (HLPF), global trade will fall by between 13% and 32% in 2020 as a consequence of the economic disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. It is expected that the decline will exceed the collapse brought on by the global financial crisis of 2008-2009, and nearly all regions will suffer double-digit declines in trade volumes in 2020.

The prediction is grim but not surprising. The world was simply not prepared for the pandemic, and, while a lot can be said about whether opting for lockdowns was a reasonable decision or not, what matters more now is the logic behind rushed economic policies. International trade implies interdependence and trust, and, therefore, unilateral withdrawal from a trading relationship is damaging and costly.

More specifically, this has to do with export restrictions on medical supplies and food. In the midst of the pandemic, 72 WTO members and eight non-WTO member countries banned or limited the export of face masks, protective gear, gloves and other goods. In a similar fashion, 15 countries globally made it harder or impossible to export food.

In the said report, the WTO draws attention to the chaotic nature of those trade regulations and lack of international cooperation and coordination. Most countries didn’t notify the WTO of their intentions to restrict trade, and this tells us two things. First, the WTO needs urgent reform to justify its institutional necessity. Second, regardless of how integrated and globalised the world might seem, true power remains with nation-states.

The good news is that the WTO is due to elect its new director-general, and some candidates seem to have a good grasp of what needs to be done to reshape the organisation. One of the frontrunners Amina Mohamed, a 58-year-old minister and former WTO chair, argues that “the [WTO] rulebook needs to be upgraded because of the concerns that are being expressed about the rules not being fit for purpose.”

The persistence of nation-statism is undeniable, and the pandemic has reinforced some of its key traits such as self-sufficiency. Being able to stand on two feet instead of waiting for others to give you a hand and, generally, being concerned only with oneself has become a protectionist mantra during the pandemic. Changing the prevalent narrative in favour of more cooperation and independence is one of the biggest challenges the new WTO DG will face.

However, it’s not all gloom and doom. The COVID-19 situation has revealed that a number of essential goods, such as ventilators or medical-style face masks had previously been burdened with tariffs. Removing many of these trade barriers has been helpful during the crisis, yet these measures are equally unnecessary outside the realms of the Novel Coronavirus. This is a positive shift and the one that needs to be endorsed by the WTO and all its members individually.

The WTO’s impact has been consistently declining over time, and the pandemic exposed its weakest sides: lack of coordination. The coronavirus crisis is not the first and definitely not the last challenge we face, but whatever happens, we should preserve free trade at all costs. The WTO is a much needed organisation, but it has to change.

The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Fun Police

ConsEUmer Podcast

Consumer Choice Center Cast

Follow us

Facebook-f Twitter Instagram Linkedin Youtube Spotify

Contact Info

712 H St NE PMB 94982
Washington, DC 20002

info@consumerchoicecenter.org

© COPYRIGHT 2024, CONSUMER CHOICE CENTER

Scroll to top
en_USEN
it_ITIT pt_BRPT fr_FRFR es_ESES de_DEDE en_USEN