Pharmacy-Based Point-of-Care Testing: How a “Standard of Care” Approach Can Facilitate Sustainability

COVID-19 spurred rapid expansion of pharmacy-based point-of-care testing (POCT). This growth was aided, in part, by federal guidance that removed state-level regulatory uncertainty surrounding the ability of pharmacists to administer, interpret, and act on the results of tests. Surveys suggest there is considerable confusion about the legality of these services by state regulators. To ensure the sustainability of POCT services over time, states should consider adopting a standard of care approach to regulation, allowing a flexible framework for practice innovation and expansion over time.

Wagering and Gaming Contracts in New Zealand

<p>The law of gaming and wagering contracts in New Zealand has a long and complex history which pre-dates the birth of this nation by almost two centuries. The Gaming Act 1908 (N.Z.) is a consolidating statute, but ss.69, 70 and 71, the enactments having specific application in this area, fall far short of providing a complete code of the law. English statutes enacted in the reigns of Charles II (1664), Anne (1710) and William IV (1835) have always been, and continue to be in force in this country, and indeed, their survival here has been more complete than in England where many of their provisions have been excised by the process of legislative repeal. The New Zealand law of gaming and wagering contracts is very much a product of the English experience for the English enactments in force here are in turn supplemented by New Zealand provisions which have been largely copied from English Gaming Acts of 1845 and 1892. But the New Zealand Legislature has not been completely lacking in imagination. Section 71 of the Gaming Act 1908 (N.Z.) has no counterpart in the English statutes, and sections 69 and 70 of the New Zealand Act both contain subtle, but significant differences, to their English equivalents. However, although New Zealand law in this area is modelled on that of England, there the similarity ends. English law in existence and applicable to the circumstances of the Colony of New Zealand on the 14th of January 1840 was declared to be in force in New Zealand by the English Laws Act, 1858 (N.Z.). That Act did not, however, apply subsequent English enactments, and substantial reforms to the law of gaming and wagering contracts effected by the gaming Act, 1845 (U.K.) were not adopted in New Zealand until the colonial Gaming and Lotteries Act was enacted in 1881. The English Act of 1845 replaced the gaming contract provisions of the Act of Anne (1710) and repealed all but those securities provisions of that Act that had been modified by the Gaming Act, 1835 (U.K.) Thus, within a period of five years from the inception of the colony, New Zealand was applying English gaming laws that were more than two centuries old whilst the English Courts were faced with the prospect of construing a brand new Act. Thirty six years later the colonial legislature adopted verbatim the contract provisions in the Imperial Act of 1845. But by an apparent over-sight the colonial draftsman failed to effect the substantial repeals of the Acts of 1664 and 1710 the English Act had done. But that was only the first of the colonial errors. A further English Act in 1892 was copied and enacted by the colonial legislature in 1894 but with an appendage that demonstrated that the New Zealand legislature had not fully understood the full import of the English measure. This created difficulties of interpretation which were only compounded by a further error of the draftsman of the 1881 Act when he mistakenly copied s.6 of the Betting Houses Act 1853 (U.K.) into s.34 of the former Act without realising the significance of doing so. The 1894 Act also introduced what is now s.71 of the 1908 Act, a provision the reason for the enactment of which has remained unexplained to the present day. When a consolidation of the Colonial Acts was effected by the Gaming Act 1908 the law of gaming and wagering contracts was already in a state of considerable confusion. That confusion was, of course, carried into that Act, but it did not end there and indeed can be said to have gained a new dimension when, as recently as 1970, the New Zealand legislature enacted the Illegal Contracts Act. The New Zealand law of gaming and wagering contracts is largely a product of misunderstandings and errors that occurred when legislative attempts were made to re-enact and effect modifications of the English statutes in this country. In this work the writer seeks to identify the points of departure and to find a rational basis for the law of gaming and wagering contracts and this investigation proceeds in the context of a recognised need for proposals for reform. To this end, in chapters 1 and 2 the social climate in which the Acts of 1664, 1710, 1835 and 1845 are enacted, and their purpose and scope, is identified. In chapter 3 the case for the proposition that the Acts of 1664, 1710 and 1835 are in force in New Zealand is made out and this is followed in chapter 4 by an attempt to explain the motivation behind the enactment of the colonial Acts of 1881 and 1894. Included in this chapter is an outline of the difficulties inherent in both the language of these Acts, and the construction applied to them by the Courts, Chapter 5 is devoted to ascertaining the actual scope of the law of gaming and wagering contracts in New Zealand today and in the penultimate chapter the Impact upon, and the implications for that law, of the Illegal Contracts Act 1970 is discussed. Each section is, where appropriate, accompanied by specific proposals for reform, and those proposals are brought together in summary form in chapter 7.</p>

Wagering and Gaming Contracts in New Zealand

<p>The law of gaming and wagering contracts in New Zealand has a long and complex history which pre-dates the birth of this nation by almost two centuries. The Gaming Act 1908 (N.Z.) is a consolidating statute, but ss.69, 70 and 71, the enactments having specific application in this area, fall far short of providing a complete code of the law. English statutes enacted in the reigns of Charles II (1664), Anne (1710) and William IV (1835) have always been, and continue to be in force in this country, and indeed, their survival here has been more complete than in England where many of their provisions have been excised by the process of legislative repeal. The New Zealand law of gaming and wagering contracts is very much a product of the English experience for the English enactments in force here are in turn supplemented by New Zealand provisions which have been largely copied from English Gaming Acts of 1845 and 1892. But the New Zealand Legislature has not been completely lacking in imagination. Section 71 of the Gaming Act 1908 (N.Z.) has no counterpart in the English statutes, and sections 69 and 70 of the New Zealand Act both contain subtle, but significant differences, to their English equivalents. However, although New Zealand law in this area is modelled on that of England, there the similarity ends. English law in existence and applicable to the circumstances of the Colony of New Zealand on the 14th of January 1840 was declared to be in force in New Zealand by the English Laws Act, 1858 (N.Z.). That Act did not, however, apply subsequent English enactments, and substantial reforms to the law of gaming and wagering contracts effected by the gaming Act, 1845 (U.K.) were not adopted in New Zealand until the colonial Gaming and Lotteries Act was enacted in 1881. The English Act of 1845 replaced the gaming contract provisions of the Act of Anne (1710) and repealed all but those securities provisions of that Act that had been modified by the Gaming Act, 1835 (U.K.) Thus, within a period of five years from the inception of the colony, New Zealand was applying English gaming laws that were more than two centuries old whilst the English Courts were faced with the prospect of construing a brand new Act. Thirty six years later the colonial legislature adopted verbatim the contract provisions in the Imperial Act of 1845. But by an apparent over-sight the colonial draftsman failed to effect the substantial repeals of the Acts of 1664 and 1710 the English Act had done. But that was only the first of the colonial errors. A further English Act in 1892 was copied and enacted by the colonial legislature in 1894 but with an appendage that demonstrated that the New Zealand legislature had not fully understood the full import of the English measure. This created difficulties of interpretation which were only compounded by a further error of the draftsman of the 1881 Act when he mistakenly copied s.6 of the Betting Houses Act 1853 (U.K.) into s.34 of the former Act without realising the significance of doing so. The 1894 Act also introduced what is now s.71 of the 1908 Act, a provision the reason for the enactment of which has remained unexplained to the present day. When a consolidation of the Colonial Acts was effected by the Gaming Act 1908 the law of gaming and wagering contracts was already in a state of considerable confusion. That confusion was, of course, carried into that Act, but it did not end there and indeed can be said to have gained a new dimension when, as recently as 1970, the New Zealand legislature enacted the Illegal Contracts Act. The New Zealand law of gaming and wagering contracts is largely a product of misunderstandings and errors that occurred when legislative attempts were made to re-enact and effect modifications of the English statutes in this country. In this work the writer seeks to identify the points of departure and to find a rational basis for the law of gaming and wagering contracts and this investigation proceeds in the context of a recognised need for proposals for reform. To this end, in chapters 1 and 2 the social climate in which the Acts of 1664, 1710, 1835 and 1845 are enacted, and their purpose and scope, is identified. In chapter 3 the case for the proposition that the Acts of 1664, 1710 and 1835 are in force in New Zealand is made out and this is followed in chapter 4 by an attempt to explain the motivation behind the enactment of the colonial Acts of 1881 and 1894. Included in this chapter is an outline of the difficulties inherent in both the language of these Acts, and the construction applied to them by the Courts, Chapter 5 is devoted to ascertaining the actual scope of the law of gaming and wagering contracts in New Zealand today and in the penultimate chapter the Impact upon, and the implications for that law, of the Illegal Contracts Act 1970 is discussed. Each section is, where appropriate, accompanied by specific proposals for reform, and those proposals are brought together in summary form in chapter 7.</p>

THE IMPACT OF THE ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION REGULATIONS, 2009, ON THE SALE AND LEASE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY

The Electrical Installation Regulations, 2009, made by the Minister of Labour in terms of section 43 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 85 of 1993 constitute yet another attempt on the part of the South African authorities to regulate the installation and use of electrical installations in buildings. The Regulations, published in terms of R 242 in Government Gazette 31975 of 6 March 2009,supersede the Electrical Installation Regulations, 1992, made by the Minister of Manpower in terms of section 35 of the Machinery and Occupational Safety Act 6 of 1983. They came into operation on 1 May 2009, with the exception of regulation 5(6) which took effect on 1 April 2010. The 2009 Regulations, like those they replace, impose certain substantive duties on users, lessors and installers of electrical installations. Of particular importance for property owners and lessors is the responsibility for the electrical installation on a property, and the duty to have a valid certificate of compliance in respect of such installation. The old Regulations did not describe these responsibilities and duties in clear terms, resulting in considerable confusion and uncertainty. Disappointingly, the new Regulationsare only marginally better in this regard. The Department of Labour has published explanatory notes on the Regulations, but they do little more than merely citing each regulation and stating that it is selfexplanatory. The Regulations were preceded by a number of drafts which, reportedly, elicited “acrimonious debate”, even the possibility of litigation involving the Electrical Contractors’Association of South Africa and the Department of Labour. However, the main points of dispute were not so much the impact of the Regulations on the sale and lease of immovable property but revolved around issues affecting the electrical contracting industry and its stakeholders. This note focuses on the requirements to be met in terms of the Electrical Installation Regulations, 2009, in relation to the sale and lease of immovable property, residential premises in particular. To place the discussion in perspective it is firstly necessary to examine briefly the objective and scope of the Regulations, having regard to certain key definitions contained in the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Regulations. Any word or expression to which a meaning has been assigned in the Act has the samemeaning for the purposes of the Regulations.

The three Ts of virulence evolution during zoonotic emergence

There is increasing interest in the role that evolution may play in current and future pandemics, but there is often also considerable confusion about the actual evolutionary predictions. This may be, in part, due to a historical separation of evolutionary and medical fields, but there is a large, somewhat nuanced body of evidence-supported theory on the evolution of infectious disease. In this review, we synthesize this evolutionary theory in order to provide a framework for clearer understanding of the key principles. Specifically, we discuss the selection acting on zoonotic pathogens' transmission rates and virulence at spillover and during emergence. We explain how the direction and strength of selection during epidemics of emerging zoonotic disease can be understood by a three Ts framework: trade-offs, transmission, and time scales. Virulence and transmission rate may trade-off, but transmission rate is likely to be favoured by selection early in emergence, particularly if maladapted zoonotic pathogens have ‘no-cost’ transmission rate improving mutations available to them. Additionally, the optimal virulence and transmission rates can shift with the time scale of the epidemic. Predicting pathogen evolution, therefore, depends on understanding both the trade-offs of transmission-improving mutations and the time scales of selection.

Molecular Vibrations Are Not Asymmetric

There is considerable confusion when naming vibrations in infrared and Raman spectra. One of the most common errors is the identification of some stretching and bending vibrations as “asymmetric”. There are no asymmetric vibrations as such vibrations incur rotations and translations. The correct term is antisymmetric and it is demonstrated, through molecular symmetry operations, why this is the correct term.

Towards a new consolidated framework for analysing benefit coverage

The conceptualisation and measurement of benefit coverage is muddled with considerable confusion. In this forum contribution, we propose a new consolidated framework for the analysis of benefit coverage. Three sequential steps in measurement are suggested, involving the calculation of coverage rates, eligibility rates and take-up rates in social protection. Each step of the analysis focuses on particular aspects of programme legislation and implementation, and together the new framework will substantially improve the possibilities of research to inform policymaking. We provide an empirical illustration of our approach based on Swedish data, and highlight how our new consolidated framework for analysing benefit coverage provides a reorientation of the research agenda on benefit coverage.

Economic Reality at the Core of Apple

In Apple, Inc. v. Pepper, the Supreme Court failed to recognize the economic reality at play which sparked considerable confusion and debate about the continued vitality of Illinois Brick. Apple used proprietary technology and threats to both iPhone owners and app developers to compel them to conduct their business in Apple’s App Store. In so doing, Apple created a presumably unlawful bottleneck. This enabled Apple to impose a 30% ad valorem tax on each transaction. The tax, that is, the antitrust damage, is borne by both the iPhone owners and the app developers according to the relative elasticities of the demand and supply. Distributing damages in this way leads to effective antitrust enforcement that does not reward the wrongdoer with ill-gotten gains nor lead to duplicative damages and complex apportioning. Our analysis clarifies the economic reality of the Apple case and provides useful guidance for handling future bottleneck cases.

Abstract and Concrete Reasonableness Review by the European Court of Human Rights

In many cases, the ECtHR is clearly asked to examine an individual decision, such as an administrative or court decision, but many other applications concern the reasonableness of interferences caused by national legislation. At present, there appears to be considerable confusion and controversy with the Court’s judges as to whether its review in the second category of cases should be concrete (focussing on the individual case only), abstract (focussing on the legislative system as a whole), or both (or a hybrid). This article presents a systematic and qualitative analysis of the Court’s case law to find out which approaches it takes to the reasonableness review of legislation in which types of cases. Based on the results of the analysis it further endeavours to answer the question of which approach would best fit the Court’s double role of delivering both individual and general justice.

Navigating ‘Home Schooling’ during COVID-19: Australian public response on Twitter

COVID-19 has wreaked havoc worldwide. Schools have escaped neither the pandemic nor its consequences. Indeed, by April 2020, schools had been suspended in 189 countries, affecting 89% of learners globally. While the Australian government has implemented variously effective health and economic policies in response to COVID-19, their inability to agree with states on education policy during the pandemic caused considerable confusion and anxiety. Accordingly, this study analyses 3 weeks of Tweets during April, leading up to the beginning of term 2, during the height of Government policy incongruity. Findings confirm a wide and rapidly changing range of public responses on Twitter. Nine themes were identified in the quantitative analysis, and six of these (positive, negative, humorous, appreciation for teachers, comments aimed at Government/politicians and definitions) are expanded upon qualitatively. Over the course of 3 weeks, the public began to lose its sense of humour and negative tweets almost doubled.