united-states
What US laws currently impede the fight against COVID-19?
<p>There must be current US laws that forbid actions which, if taken, would help slow or stop the spread of COVID-19. What are they?</p>

<p>EDIT: in response to comments asking what evidence there is that such laws exist, I would note the current case counts and test counts in a few countries, according to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic&amp;oldid=945135567" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Wikipedia</a>:</p>

<pre><code>Country         Cases       Tests      Ratio
  India            62       4058        65
  South Korea    7755    222,395        29
  Philippines      49        663        13
  USA            1275       8554         6.7
</code></pre>

<p>When it comes to testing, we suck. And then there are reports of people who wanted a test but couldn't get one in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/nyregion/coronavirus-testing-newyork.html." rel="nofollow noreferrer">New York</a> and <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/coronavirus-may-have-spread-undetected-for-weeks-in-washington-state/2020/03/01/0f292336-5bcc-11ea-9055-5fa12981bbbf_story.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Washington State</a>. Contrast the situation in <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-51836898" rel="nofollow noreferrer">South Korea</a>. Faced with a novel and obviously problematic situation, they adapted in a tremendous hurry, with innovative solutions in use within days.</p>

<p>FURTHER EDIT: Mike Pence appears to <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-us-testing-red-tape-mike-pence-vice-president/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">agree</a> that regulations and/or laws are getting in the way of testing.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>What US laws currently impede the fight against COVID-19?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It is not that such laws <em>impede</em> (that is, <em>ex-ante</em>) the fight against coronavirus. Instead, prosecution for not abiding by those laws <em>under circumstances of emergency</em> would lead to the absurd outcome of penalizing (<em>ex-post</em>) people's efforts toward stopping the spread of the virus. Thus, it is a matter of balancing the <em>competing interests</em> of constitutional/statutory freedoms on the one side, and public policy or the common good on the other side.</p>

<p>As an example, consider the US government's likely decision to restrict or prohibit <em>interstate travel</em>. This prohibition seems justifiable as an attempt to curb the spread of the virus. </p>

<p>An infected person could complain in terms of <a href="https://www.leagle.com/decision/19661128383us74511071" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>U.S. v. Guest</em>, 383 US 745, 758 (1966)</a> ("<em>freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution</em>", citing cases). However, leaving that person's <em>freedom of movement</em> unaltered exposes the population of the destination [virus-free] state(s) to a high risk of contagion, which is precisely what the government intended to prevent.</p>

<p>Most examples have to do with the <em>freedom of movement</em>. In addition to that, any form of quarantine or a prohibition to attend gatherings might also be construed as a hindrance to people's <em>freedom of expression</em> or their <em>right to assemble</em> as premised on the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment" rel="nofollow noreferrer">First Amendment</a>. The rationale is inline with <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association#United_States_Constitution" rel="nofollow noreferrer">the argument</a> that "<em>people can engage in effective speech only when they join others</em>". But, similar to the previous example, the risk and impact of contagion are too high to preserve or remedy the person's said rights under a situation that can easily get --or might already be getting-- out of control.</p>

<p>Note: This is not intended to be an exhaustive answer.</p>
