Pandemics

Virușii coabitează de cca. 300 milioane de ani cu oamenii. Uneori, virușii pot infecta oamenii pe scară largă. Dar, cum a fost posibilă actuala pandemie? Încălzirea globală determină fenomene meteorologice extreme care au dus la o creștere a bolilor infecțioase. Noul climat poate susține vectori epidemiologici pentru perioade mai lungi de timp, creând condiții mai favorabile replicării și apariția de noi vectori. În cazul bolilor infecțioase emergente, se consideră că există o graniță peste care s-a sărit deja. Virușii au, în (...) mod normal, o zonă nativă („rezervorul” lor), din care nu ar trebui să fie împinși afară. Se creează astfel o intimitate periculoasă, cu „puncte fierbinți” care includ locații precum piețele, care devin adevărate focare de epidemii. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16634.11202. (shrink)

The viruses coexist for approx. 300 million years with the humans. Sometimes viruses can infect people on a large scale. But how was the current pandemic possible? Global warming is causing extreme weather events that have led to an increase in infectious diseases. The new climate can support epidemiological vectors for longer periods of time, creating more favorable conditions for replication and the emergence of new vectors. In the case of emerging infectious diseases, it is considered that there is a (...) border that has already been crossed. Viruses normally have a native area (their "reservoir") from which they should not be pushed out. This creates a dangerous intimacy, with "hotspots" that include locations such as markets, which become real hotbeds of epidemics. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26974.87364 . (shrink)

Le biopouvoir fait référence à la pratique des États-nations modernes à travers une explosion de techniques nombreuses et diverses pour parvenir à l'assujettissement des corps et au contrôle des populations. Foucault a utilisé le terme pour désigner spécifiquement les pratiques de santé publique, entre autres mécanismes de régulation. La biopolitique est un concept qui prend en compte la gestion de la vie et des populations d'une région gouvernée. La biopolitique produit une société disciplinaire généralisée et des contrôles réglementaires à travers (...) la biopolitique de la population. Giorgio Agamben déclare que ce qui se manifeste dans cette pandémie, c'est la tendance croissante à utiliser l'état d'urgence comme un paradigme normal de gouvernement. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31915.87840. (shrink)

Une brève rétrospective du virus COVID-19 qui a causé la pandémie actuelle, son cycle de vie et son histoire. Réactions, mesures et effets de la pandémie COVID-19. Une présentation des diverses approches philosophiques, avec un accent sur la philosophie de la mort, l'écopsychanalyse, et un appel aux philosophies de Sigmund Freud et Albert Camus. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35853.36328 .

Les virus coexistent pendant env. 300 millions d'années avec les humains. Parfois, les virus peuvent infecter les gens à grande échelle. Mais comment la pandémie actuelle a-t-elle été possible ? Le réchauffement climatique est à l'origine d'événements météorologiques extrêmes qui ont conduit à une augmentation des maladies infectieuses. Le nouveau climat peut soutenir les vecteurs épidémiologiques pendant de plus longues périodes, créant des conditions plus favorables à la réplication et à l'émergence de nouveaux vecteurs. Dans le cas des maladies infectieuses (...) émergentes, on considère qu'il existe une frontière qui a déjà été franchie. Les virus ont normalement une zone d'origine (leur « réservoir ») d'où ils ne doivent pas être expulsés. Cela crée une intimité dangereuse, avec des « points chauds » qui incluent des endroits comme les marchés, qui deviennent de véritables foyers d'épidémies. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32255.43688. (shrink)

Following the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic, Slavoj Žižek published a book called "Pandemic!: COVID-19 Shakes the World", which triggered a wave of reactions. In the book, he presents how the media ruthlessly exploited this subject, accentuating the panic. Many major studies have predicted the emergence of such a pandemic, but have been ignored by all governments, declaring them to be exaggerated. Žižek believes that the current pandemic has led to the bankruptcy of the current "barbaric" capitalism, wondering if the (...) path that humanity will take is a neo-communism (he describes himself as a "radical leftist" and a "communist in a qualified sense”). Žižek argues these ideas with the pandemic socio-political measures of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and the President of France, and the temporary nationalization of the railways by Boris Johnson. "Even [US President Donald] Trump transferred billions of dollars to the public. He issued calls to take over the private sector insofar as medical supplies are concerned." DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12914.12484. (shrink)

Biopower refers to the practice of modern nation-states through an explosion of numerous and diverse techniques for achieving the subjugation of bodies and the control of populations. Foucault used the term to refer specifically to public health practices, among other regulatory mechanisms. Biopolitics is a concept that takes into account the management of the life and populations of a governed region. Biopolitics produces a generalized disciplinary society and regulatory controls through population biopolitics. Giorgio Agamben states that what is manifesting in (...) this pandemic is the growing tendency to use the state of emergency as a normal paradigm of government. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29380.04488 . (shrink)

From the existentialism of Albert Camus and Sartre, to the replacement of the exclusion ritual with the disciplinary mechanism of Michel Foucault, an ideal form of control of state authorities of all forms of "disorder", and viral modernity and bioinformationalism. And about the Gaia hypothesis, developed by James Lovelock and supported in the current pandemic by Bruno Latour. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34967.80801.

The largest medical institutions and various ethicists advocate a utilitarian approach in times of public health crises, to maximize benefits for society, in direct conflict with our usual (Kantian) view of respect for people as individuals. A central problem with utilitarianism is that there is no clear way to evaluate moral choices, including in medical decisions. In general, in medicine is respected the Kantian medical ethics. But in a pandemic, when resources are poor, deep choices of life and death must (...) be made. In these situations, the principles of utilitarianism offer the best answer, moving from a patient-centered thinking model to a society-centered thinking model. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36811.82728. (shrink)

In the case of the COVID-19 pandemic, there are some signs of a shift of paradigm, including the sudden disappearance of the wall ideology: a cough was enough to suddenly make it impossible to avoid the responsibility that each individual has towards all living beings for the simple fact that it is part of this world, and of the desire to be part of it. The whole is always involved in part, because everything is, in a sense, in everything and (...) in nature there are no autonomous regions that are an exception. The virus seems to restore the supremacy that once belonged to politics. One of the virtues of the virus is its ability to generate a more sober idea of freedom: to be free means to do what needs to be done in a specific situation. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20745.67681 . (shrink)

Bioputerea face referire la practica statelor naționale moderne prin o explozie de numeroase și diverse tehnici pentru realizarea subjugării corpurilor și controlul populațiilor. Foucault a folosit termenul pentru a se referi în mod specific la practicile de sănătate publică, printre alte mecanisme de reglementare. Biopolitica este un concept care ia în considerare administrarea vieții și a populațiilor unei regiuni guvernate. Biopolitica produce o societate disciplinară generalizată și controale de reglementare prin biopolitica populației. Giorgio Agamben afirmă că ceea ce se manifestă (...) în această pandemie este tendința crescândă de a folosi starea de excepție ca o paradigmă normală de guvernare. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13265.56161. (shrink)

Cele mai mari instituții medicale și diverși eticieni pledează pentru o abordare utilitaristă în perioadele de crize de sănătate publică, pentru a maximiza beneficiile pentru societate, în conflict direct cu viziunea noastră obișnuită (kantiană) privind respectul față de persoane ca indivizi. O problemă centrală a utilitarismului este că nu există nicio modalitate clară de a evalua alegerile morale, inclusiv în deciziile medicale. În general, în medicină se respectă etica medicală kantiană. Dar în pandemie, când resursele sunt sărace, trebuie făcute alegeri (...) profunde, de viață și moarte. În aceste situații principiile utilitarismului oferă cel mai bun răspuns, cu trecerea de la un model de gândire centrat pe pacient la un model de gândire centrat pe societate. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28443.69929. (shrink)

O scurtă retrospectivă a virusul COVID-19 care a cauzat actuala pandemie, a cilului său de viață și a istoriei sale. Reacții, măsuri și efecte ale pandemiei COVID-19. O prezentare a diverselor abordări filosofice, cu accent pe filosofia morții, ecopsihanaliză, și apel la filosofiile lui Sigmund Freud și Albert Camus. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17900.59528.

De la existențialismul lui Albert Camus și Sartre, la înlocuirea ritualului de excludere cu mecanismul disciplinar al lui Michel Foucault, o formă ideală de control al autorităților statului a tuturor formelor de ”dezordine”, și modernitatea virală și bioinformaționalism. Și despre ipoteza Gaia, dezvoltată de James Lovelock și susținută în actuala pandemie de Bruno Latour. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31276.49284.

A brief retrospective of the COVID-19 virus that caused the current pandemic, its life cycle and its history. Reactions, measures and effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. A presentation of various philosophical approaches, with an emphasis on the philosophy of death, eco-psychoanalysis, and appeal to the philosophies of Sigmund Freud and Albert Camus. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14848.25608.

Social isolation (desocialization) implies a complete or almost complete lack of contact between an individual and society. This can be a problem for people of any age, although the symptoms may differ depending on the age group. Social isolation can include staying home for long periods of time, and lack of face-to-face communication with family, acquaintances, friends, or co-workers. Social isolation can lead to feelings of loneliness, fear of others or negative self-esteem. We cannot exist independently of our relationships with (...) others. One's own humanity is reduced when others are treated without dignity and respect. At the same time, provoking harm to another person can also affect perceptions of oneself. It turns out that a person's humanity depends on the humanity of those around him. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35832.06405. (shrink)

De l'existentialisme d'Albert Camus et Sartre, au remplacement du rituel d'exclusion par le mécanisme disciplinaire de Michel Foucault, forme idéale de contrôle des autorités étatiques de toutes les formes de « désordre », et à la modernité virale et au bioinformationalisme. Et à propos de l'hypothèse Gaia, développée par James Lovelock et soutenue dans la pandémie actuelle par Bruno Latour. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20639.18089.

În cazul pandemiei COVID-19, există unele semne ale schimbării de paradigmă, inclusiv dispariția bruscă a ideologiei legate de „ziduri”: ”o tuse a fost suficientă pentru a face dintr-o dată imposibilă evitarea responsabilității pe care fiecare individ o are față de toate ființele vii pentru simplul fapt că este parte a acestei lumi, și a dorinței de a fi parte a ei”. Întregul este întotdeauna implicat în parte, pentru că totul este, într-un anumit sens, în tot și în natură nu există (...) regiuni autonome care să constituie o excepție. Virusul pare să restabilească supremația care a aparținut cândva politicii. Una din virtuțile virusului este capacitatea acestuia de a genera o idee mai sobră de libertate: a fi liber înseamnă a face ceea ce trebuie făcut într-o situație specifică. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29865.83041. (shrink)

Izolarea socială (desocializarea) presupune o lipsă completă sau aproape completă de contact între un individ și societate. Aceasta poate fi o problemă pentru persoanele de orice vârstă, deși simptomele pot diferi în funcție de grupul de vârstă. Izolarea socială poate include șederea acasă pentru perioade îndelungate de timp, și lipsa comunicării față în față cu familia, cunoștințele, prietenii sau colegii de servici. Izolarea socială poate duce la sentimente de singurătate, frica de ceilalți sau stima de sine negativă. Nu putem exista (...) independent de relațiile noastre cu ceilalți. Propria umanitate este redusă atunci când alții sunt tratați fără demnitate și respect. În același timp, provocarea de rău altei persoane poate afecta și percepțiile despre sine. Rezultă că umanitatea unei persoane depinde de umanitatea celor din jurul ei. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27847.32166. (shrink)

După declararea pandemiei COVID-19, Slavoj Žižek a publicat o carte numită „Pandemic!: COVID-19 Shakes the World”, care a declanșat un val de reacții. În carte, el prezintă modul în care media a exploatat fără milă acest subiect, accentuând panica. Multe studii majore au prezis apariția unei astfel de pandemii, dar au fost ignorate de toate guvernele, declarându-le ca fiind exagerate. Žižek crede că actuala pandemie a dus la falimentul actualului capitalism ”barbar”, întrebându-se dacă nu cumva drumul pe care îl va (...) lua omenirea este un neo-comunism (el însuși se descrie ca un „radical de stânga” și un „comunist în sens calificat”). Žižek argumentează aceste idei cu măsurile socio-politice din pandemie ale cancelarului Germaniei, Angela Merkel și a președintelui Franței, și naționalizarea temporară a căilor ferate de către Boris Johnson. ”Chiar și președintele SUA, Donald Trump, a transferat miliarde de dolari americanilor. El a emis apeluri pentru preluarea sectorului privat în ceea ce privește materialele medicale.” DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31451.80167. (shrink)

Suite à la déclaration de la pandémie COVID-19, Slavoj Žižek a publié un livre intitulé « Pandemic!: COVID-19 Shakes the World », qui a déclenché une vague de réactions. Dans le livre, il présente comment les médias ont impitoyablement exploité ce sujet, accentuant la panique. De nombreuses études majeures ont prédit l'émergence d'une telle pandémie, mais ont été ignorées par tous les gouvernements, les déclarant exagérées. Žižek estime que la pandémie actuelle a conduit à la faillite du capitalisme « barbare (...) » actuel, se demandant si le chemin que l'humanité empruntera est un néo-communisme (il se décrit lui-même comme un « radical de gauche » et un « communiste en non qualifié »). Žižek fait valoir ces idées avec les mesures sociopolitiques pandémiques de la chancelière allemande Angela Merkel et du président français, et la nationalisation temporaire des chemins de fer par Boris Johnson. « Même le président américain Donald Trump a transféré des milliards de dollars aux Américains. Il a appelé à la reprise du secteur privé en termes de fournitures médicales. » DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28160.66566. (shrink)

Les plus grandes institutions médicales et divers éthiciens préconisent une approche utilitariste en période de crise de santé publique, afin de maximiser les bénéfices pour la société, en conflit direct avec notre vision habituelle (kantienne) du respect des personnes en tant qu'individus. Un problème central de l'utilitarisme est qu'il n'y a pas de moyen clair d'évaluer les choix moraux, y compris dans les décisions médicales. En général, l'éthique médicale kantienne est respectée en médecine. Mais dans une pandémie, lorsque les ressources (...) sont pauvres, des choix profonds de vie ou de mort doivent être faits. Dans ces situations, les principes de l'utilitarisme offrent la meilleure réponse, avec le passage d'un modèle de pensée centré sur le patient à un modèle de pensée centré sur la société. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34596.30088. (shrink)

The testimonies of celebrities affect the lives of their many followers who pay attention to what they say. This gives celebrities a high degree of epistemic power, which has come under close scrutiny during the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper investigates the duties that arise from this power. We argue that celebrities have a negative duty of testimonial justice not to undermine trust in authoritative sources by spreading misinformation or directing attention to untrustworthy sources. Moreover, celebrities have a general imperfect duty (...) to try to correct for an unjust distribution of attention by redirecting it to those who deserve it. During a pandemic this may become a perfect one, due to the harm that could be prevented if people follow the advice of experts. Relatedly, we argue that celebrities have an imperfect duty to promote behavior that will reduce the spread of a pandemic. We outline three ways they might do so: they might take on the position of a role model, they may act as a salience magnet or they can direct people’s attention towards others who have taken on these roles. (shrink)

Conservative assumptions in medical ethics risk immense harms during a pandemic. Public health institutions and public discourse alike have repeatedly privileged inaction over aggressive medical interventions to address the pandemic, perversely increasing population-wide risks while claiming to be guided by “caution”. This puzzling disconnect between rhetoric and reality is suggestive of an underlying philosophical confusion. In this paper, I argue that we have been misled by status quo bias—exaggerating the moral significance of the risks inherent in medical interventions, while systematically (...) neglecting the (objectively greater) risks inherent in the status quo prospect of an out-of-control pandemic. By coming to appreciate the possibility and significance of status quo risk, we will be better prepared to respond appropriately when the next pandemic strikes. (shrink)

On 26 January 2021, while announcing that the country had reached the mark of 100,000 deaths within 28 days of COVID-19, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson said that he took “full responsibility for everything that the Government has done” as part of British efforts to tackle the pandemic. The force of this statement was undermined, however, by what followed: -/- What I can tell you is that we truly did everything we could, and continue to do everything that we can, (...) to minimise loss of life and to minimise suffering... -/- Taking these sentiments together, it was hard to avoid the conclusion that the government took responsibility only for doing everything right. Such an admission of responsibility, accommodating no admission of error or wrongdoing, is not really about responsibility at all. Indeed, the UK’s pandemic response has been marked from its earliest days by a shifting of focus from institutional responsibility to personal responsibility for individual UK residents. -/- This paper explores the relationship between these two sites of responsibility—the institutional and the personal—in the context of the sort of pandemic that is ongoing as we write. Section 2 offers some initial definitions and discussions of key terms. Section 3 outlines how these two ideas interact in principle during such emergencies. Section 4 turns to the ‘non-ideal’ implications for personal responsibility of failures of institutional responsibility. While our focus is on the specific context with which we are most familiar, the UK governmental approach, where appropriate we also include examples from other states. (shrink)

In response to the spread of COVID-19, governments across the world have, with very few exceptions, enacted sweeping restrictive lockdown policies that impede citizens’ freedom to move, work, and assemble. This paper critically responds to the central arguments for restrictive lockdown legislation. We build our critique on the following assumption: public policy that enjoys virtually unanimous support worldwide should be justified by uncontroversial moral principles. We argue that that the virtually unanimous support in favor of restrictive lockdowns is not adequately (...) justified by the arguments given in favor of them. Importantly, this is not to say that states ought not impose restrictive lockdown measures, but rather that the extent of the acceptance of these measures is not proportionate to the strength of the arguments for lockdowns. -/- We begin by exploring the case for restrictive lockdowns. We first argue that several of the principles that are used to justify the lockdowns yield unexpectedly revisionary implications for other political problems that many would be unwilling to accept. We then outline what we consider the strongest argument for a lockdown—namely, that its net welfare benefits are great enough to defeat the moral presumption against restricting citizens’ civil liberties to move, work, and assemble. However, we give a number of reasons for doubting that the lockdown’s net welfare benefits are, in fact, sufficiently high to defeat the presumption against it. (shrink)

COVID-19 vaccination of children has begun in various high-income countries with regulatory approval and general public support, but largely without careful ethical consideration. This trend is expected to extend to other COVID-19 vaccines and lower ages as clinical trials progress. This paper provides an ethical analysis of COVID-19 vaccination of healthy children. Specifically, we argue that it is currently unclear whether routine COVID-19 vaccination of healthy children is ethically justified in most contexts, given the minimal direct benefit that COVID-19 vaccination (...) provides to children, the potential for rare risks to outweigh these benefits and undermine vaccine confidence, and substantial evidence that COVID-19 vaccination confers adequate protection to risk groups, such as older adults, without the need to vaccinate healthy children. We conclude that child COVID-19 vaccination in wealthy communities before adults in poor communities worldwide is ethically unacceptable and consider how policy deliberations might evolve in light of future developments. (shrink)

We argue that pandemic and lockdown can be usefully interpreted as transformative experiences, albeit of a sort with interestingly different features to those discussed by L.A. Paul.

John and Curran have convincingly shown that Scanlonian contractualism is a valuable resource for evaluating pandemic response policies, and that we should reject cost–benefit analysis in favour of a contractualist framework. However, they fail to consider the part of contractualism that Scanlon constructed precisely to deal with the question of when the state can restrict individuals from making choices that are harmful to themselves and others: the value of choice view (VoC). In doing so, they leave it open for opponents (...) of lockdowns to misuse contractualism to justify mistaken policies. This is because the most powerful contractualist objections to locking down are likely to be based on the VoC. -/- When we apply the value of choice view (VoC), we see that a lockdown policy’s justifiability depends on the extent to which particular values of choice are found to be threatened by the policy in question, and what safeguards policy-makers have put in place to increase the value of choice and protect people from the harmful consequences of lockdown. Without the VoC, it is harder to explain why lockdowns, to be non-rejectable, must have certain features. With the VoC, the case for contractualism over cost benefit analysis (CBA) can be made even stronger. (shrink)

I provide a critical review of Moti Mizrahi's The Relativity of Theory, expounding on the book's strengths and then providing an extended argument that Mizrahi mischaracterizes the epistemic attitude of concern to antirealism about science as well as the practical stakes involved in adopting the antirealist position.

We reflect on our experience co-teaching a medical humanities elective, “Pandemics and Plagues,” which was offered to undergraduates during the Spring 2021 semester, and discuss student reactions to studying epidemic disease from multidisciplinary medical humanities perspectives while living through the world Covid-19 pandemic. The course incorporated basic microbiology and epidemiology into discussions of how epidemics from the Black Death to HIV/AIDS have been portrayed in history, literature, art, music, and journalism. Students self-assessed their learning gains and offered their insights using (...) the SALG, describing how the course enhanced their understanding of the current pandemic. In class discussions and written assignments, students paid particular attention to issues of social justice, political context, and connections between past pandemics and Covid-19. Student responses indicate enhanced understanding of the scientific and medical aspects of epidemics and also increased appreciation of the insights to be gained from the medical humanities. We discuss co-teaching the class during a real-time, twenty-four-hour-news-cycle pandemic, and the ways in which that experience underlines the value of a “critical medical humanities” approach for undergraduates. (shrink)

According to the World Health Organisation, three to five million individuals are infected by influenza, and around 250,000 to 500,000 people die of this infectious disease worldwide. Influenza epidemics pose a serious public health threat. Moreover, graver dangers are encountered with influenza subtypes against which there is little or no preexisting human immunity. Such subtypes of influenza have the potential to cause devastating epidemics. Thus, enhancing surveillance systems for the purpose of detecting influenza epidemics in an early stage can quicken (...) response times and save millions of lives. This paper presents three adapting intelligence models: support vector machine regression, artificial neural network using particle swarm optimisation, and our intelligent time series to predict influenza epidemics. The novelty of the current study is that it proposes a new intelligent model to predict influenza outbreaks. The INTS model combines clustering with a time series model to enhance the prediction of influenza outbreaks. The innovation of our proposed model integrates the results obtained from the existing weighted exponential smoothing model with centroids obtained from clustering. We developed a surveillance system for influenza epidemics using Google search queries. The current research is based on a weighted version of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention influenza-like illness activity level obtained from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention data, as well as query data obtained from the Goggle search engine in the USA. The influenza-like illness data was collected from January 4, 2009, to December 27, 2015, stretching across a total time span of 312 weeks. Google Correlate was used to select search queries related to influenza epidemics. In total, 100 search queries were obtained from Google Correlate, 10 of which were better and more relevant search queries selected in this study. The model was evaluated using online Google search queries collected from Google Correlate. Standard measure performance MSE, RMSE, and MAE were employed to estimate the results of the proposed model. The empirical results of the INTS model showed MSE = 0.003, RMSE = 0.036, and MAE = 0.0185, indicating that the errors of the proposed model are very limited. A comparative model of predicting results between the INTS model, alternative Google Flu Trend, and autoregression with Google search data is also presented. The proposed model outperformed the existing models. (shrink)

In the context of Covid-19 pandemic, this paper reflects on the effects of great epidemics on our cultural attitudes towards illness and death. First, through a parallel between the coronavirus pandemic and the medieval Black Death, I examine the impact of epidemics on our ways of thinking about reality and of responding collectively to the fear of dying. Based on the historical periodization of the different mentalities towards death, formulated by Philippe Ariès, I argue that epidemic phenomena modify the way (...) in which the different cultures conceive and deal with finitude, and how this fact manifests itself in the contemporary society, characterized by the denial of death. I conclude that current pandemic can lead us to a thoughtful reappropriation of our mortality. Second, based on the reflections of American writer Susan Sontag, I analyze the negative impact of military metaphors associated with contagious diseases, and how these metaphors promote our fears and irrational attitudes in the face of crisis. Finally, I show that the emergence of new pathologies, such as coronavirus disease, is generating a conceptual change in medicine that leads to rethinking many of the traditional ideas regarding microorganisms and the infections they cause. I claim that this scientific revolution may contribute to a positive modification in our ways of understanding death and disease, and to the search for a more balanced relationship with the natural environment that also helps prevent future pandemics. (shrink)

That they are ‘following the science’ has become the watchword of many politicians during the present pandemic, especially when imposing or prolonging lockdowns or other liberty-restricting regulations. The scientists who advise politicians however are usually careful to add that the decision what to restrict and when is ultimately a political one. In science, as in medical practice, there is a delicate balance to be maintained between confidence in the best available information, and the necessary caveat that the assumptions and calculations (...) on which that information is based are subject to further scientific enquiry. For politicians and the public, moreover, as for patients, whether those informing them are judged to be trustworthy is a necessary consideration, a judgement determined by a variety of personal and political contingencies and circumstances. Ethics, by contrast, unable to appeal to scientific consensus or political authority, let alone a confidence-inspiring bedside manner, must rest the case for its essentially contestable assumptions and arguments being judged trustworthy, on its willingness to admit all reasoned voices to a conversation that is potentially unending, but in the process often highly enlightening. That conversation is contributed to in this issue of the Journal by several reasoned voices, mostly on ethical aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Relevant to issues on which politicians claim to be ‘following the science’, but also raising fundamental ethical questions, is this month’s feature article. In Ethics of Selective Restriction of Liberty in a Pandemic, 1 Cameron and colleagues consider ‘if and when it may be ethically acceptable to impose selective liberty-restricting measures in order to reduce the negative impacts of a pandemic by preventing particularly vulnerable groups [for example, the elderly in COVID-19] of the community from contracting the disease’ [and thereby, for example, increasing …. (shrink)

The coronavirus disease crisis provoked an organizational ethics dilemma: how to develop ethical pandemic policy while upholding our organizational mission to deliver relationship- and patient-centered care. Tasked with producing a recommendation about whether healthcare workers and essential personnel should receive priority access to limited medical resources during the pandemic, the bioethics department and survey and interview methodologists at our institution implemented a deliberative approach that included the perspectives of healthcare professionals and patient stakeholders in the policy development process. Involving the (...) community more, not less, during a crisis required balancing the need to act quickly to garner stakeholder perspectives, uncertainty about the extent and duration of the pandemic, and disagreement among ethicists about the most ethically supportable way to allocate scarce resources. This article explains the process undertaken to garner stakeholder input as it relates to organizational ethics, recounts the stakeholder perspectives shared and how they informed the triage policy developed, and offers suggestions for how other organizations may integrate stakeholder involvement in ethical decision-making as well as directions for future research and public health work. (shrink)

The Covid-19 pandemic has confronted humanity with a complex and unexpected challenge. One part of this challenge concerned individual ethics, i.e., the behaviour of individuals with respect to the rules and restrictions that have been imposed by health authorities in the collective interest. Another part concerned, instead, the social organisation of immunisation campaigns. In this article I wonder whether the lessons we have learned in the fight against the Covid-19 pandemic can be applied to climate change mitigation. My first argument (...) is that at least some of the ethical successes obtained at the individual level can be repeated with respect to climate change, but only if we stop focusing solely on the risks of climate change and offer a convincing picture of the benefits and opportunities of a more sustainable world. The second argument is that the Covid-19 pandemic offered us a new perspective on the relationship between global systemic threats and social justice: no one can adapt in isolation, neither medically nor economically. An out-of-control climate will lead to the same situation, so the asymmetry of vulnerability between developed and developing countries is only a short-term illusion. (shrink)

In the midst of a pandemic, what does it mean to see the Other as Other and not as a carrier of the virus? I argue that in seeking a Levinasian response to the pandemic, we must be mindful of the implications of the mechanisms of surveillance and control that, presented as ways to protect the Other, operate by controlling the Other and rendering our relation to the Other increasingly impersonal. Subjected to these mechanisms, the Other becomes a dangerous entity (...) that must be controlled, and the state that deploys them comes increasingly to mediate the relation between self and Other. The more we rely on such mechanisms for protection, the easier it becomes to regard the Other not as one who summons me to an infinite responsibility but as a vector of disease. Despite all the differences between Levinas’s and Foucault’s approaches, reading them in conversation shows that the control and surveillance of the population functions within a discourse that medicalizes and objectifies the Other in favor of the centralizing power that uses those technologies. In defiance of Levinas’s warning against imposing a narrative on the Other’s suffering, this discourse coopts that suffering as a justification for biopower. (shrink)

Die Covid-19-Pandemie und der Umgang mit ihr sind eine immense Herausforderung, nicht zuletzt für das philosophische Denken. Unter dem Brennglas der Coronakrise stellen sich viele Fragen schärfer und dringlicher als zuvor: etwa über die Berechtigung von Freiheitseinschränkungen, Vertrauen als politische Kategorie, die Schutzpflichten des Staates, Freiwilligkeit und Zwang, den gerechten Umgang mit Versorgungsengpässen in der Medizin oder über verantwortungsvolle Krisenkommunikation. Die Gesellschaft für Analytische Philosophie (GAP) hat einen Essay-Wettbewerb ausgerufen: »Nachdenken über Corona«. Dieser Band versammelt die Texte der drei Preisträger (...) und die besten Essays aus mehr als 100 Einsendungen. (shrink)

BackgroundIn the initial phase of the Covid-19 pandemic, difficult decisions had to be made on the allocation of testing resources. Similar situations can arise in future pandemics. Therefore, careful consideration of who should be tested is an important part of pandemic preparedness. We focus on four ethical aspects of that problem: how to prioritize scarce testing resources, the regulation of commercial direct-to-consumer test services, testing of unauthorized immigrants, and obligatory testing.Main textThe distribution of scarce resources for testing: We emphasize the (...) use of needs-based criteria, but also acknowledge the importance of choosing a testing strategy that contributes efficiently to stopping the overall spread of the disease. Commercial direct-to-consumer test services: Except in cases of acute scarcity, such services will in practice have to be allowed. We propose that they should be subject to regulation that ensures test quality and adequate information to users. Testing of unauthorized immigrants, their children and other people with unclear legal status: Like everyone else, these individuals may be in need of testing, and it is in society’s interest to reach them with testing in order to stop the spread of the disease. A society that offers comprehensive medical services to unauthorized immigrants is in a much better position to reach them in a pandemic than a society that previously excluded them from healthcare. Obligatory testing: While there are often strong reasons for universal testing in residential areas or on workplaces, there are in most cases better ways to achieve testing coverage than to make testing mandatory.ConclusionIn summary, we propose decision-making primarily based on needs-based criteria, strict regulation but not prohibition of direct-to-consumer test services, test services offered to unauthorized immigrants, preferably as part of comprehensive medical services, and broad outreach of testing services whenever possible, but in general not obligatory testing. (shrink)

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic is influencing our lives in an enormous and unprecedented way. Here, we explore COVID-19-lockdown's consequences for creative activity. To this end, we relied on two extensive diary studies. The first, held on March 2019, involved 78 students who reported their emotions and creativity over 2 weeks. The second, conducted on March 2020, involved 235 students who reported on their emotions, creativity, and the intensity of thinking and talking about COVID-19 over a month. We found that (...) compared with 2019, during the lockdown, students engaged slightly yet statistically significantly more in creative activities. An analysis of diaries collected during the pandemic also showed that the days when students spent more time discussing or searching for information about COVID-19 were characterized by a higher creative activity yet also mixed emotions. We discuss potential explanations of these unexpected results along with future study directions. (shrink)

Infectious disease epidemics are widely recognised as a serious global threat. The need to educate the public regarding health and safety during an epidemic is particularly apparent when considering that behavioural changes can have a profound impact on disease spread. While there is a large body of literature focused on the opportunities and pitfalls of engaging mass news media during an epidemic, given the pervasiveness of popular film in modern society there is a relative lack of research regarding the potential (...) role of fictional media in educating the public about epidemics. There is a growing collection of viral outbreak films that might serve as a source of information about epidemics for popular culture consumers that warrants critical examination. As such, this paper considers the motivating factors behind engaging preventive behaviours during a disease outbreak, and the role news and popular media may have in influencing these behaviours. (shrink)

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a global societal, economic, and social upheaval unseen in living memory. There have been substantial cross-national differences in the kinds of policies implemented by political decision-makers to prevent the spread of the virus, to test the population, and to manage infected patients. Among other factors, these policies vary with politicians’ sex: early findings indicate that, on average, female leaders seem more focused on minimizing direct human suffering caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, while male leaders implement (...) riskier short-term decisions, possibly aiming to minimize economic disruptions. These sex differences are consistent with broader findings in psychology, reflecting women’s stronger empathy, higher pathogen disgust, health concern, care-taking orientation, and dislike for the suffering of other people—as well as men’s higher risk-taking, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, narcissism, and focus on financial indicators of success and status. This review article contextualizes sex differences in pandemic leadership in an evolutionary framework. Evolution by natural selection is the only known process in nature that organizes organisms into higher degrees of functional order, or counteracts the unavoidable disorder that would otherwise ensue, and is therefore essential for explaining the origins of human sex differences. Differential sexual selection and parental investment between males and females, together with the sexual differentiation of the mammalian brain, drive sex differences in cognition and behavioral dispositions, underlying men’s and women’s leadership styles and decision-making during a global pandemic. According to thesexually dimorphic leadership specialization hypothesis, general psychobehavioral sex differences have been exapted during human evolution to create sexually dimorphic leadership styles. They may be facultatively co-opted by societies and/or followers when facing different kinds of ecological and/or sociopolitical threats, such as disease outbreaks or intergroup aggression. Early evidence indicates that against the invisible viral foe that can bring nations to their knees, the strategic circumspection of empathic feminine health “worriers” may bring more effective and humanitarian outcomes than the devil-may-care incaution of masculine risk-taking “warriors”. (shrink)

This paper uses virtue ethics to discuss the COVID-19 outbreak, Hollywood science-fiction/pandemic films, and the environmental crisis. We outline the ideas of hubris and nemesis and argue that responding to the COVID-19 pandemic requires that we develop virtues. We will explore these ethical issues through an eco-reading (Hiltner 2018) of two popular films cinematic representation of pandemics, The Andromeda Strain (1971) and Contagion (2011). Fictional narratives are particularly adept at celebrating the moral and intellectual virtues of individuals (as is standard (...) in Hollywood cinema) and dramatizing the tensions inherent in human scientific and technological civilisation. Using examples from our texts and with reference to COVID-19, we begin with a discussion of virtues and vices, both individual and collective, we then explore the concept of flourishing and apply this framework to collective action problems such as climate change and COVID-19. Thus, science fiction can provoke new forms of environmental philosophising and ethical engagement, while addressing the most important challenges facing humanity at present. (shrink)

While public health organizations can detect disease spread, few can monitor and respond to real-time misinformation. Misinformation risks the public’s health, the credibility of institutions, and the safety of experts and front-line workers. Big Data, and specifically publicly available media data, can play a significant role in understanding and responding to misinformation. The Public Good Projects uses supervised machine learning to aggregate and code millions of conversations relating to vaccines and the COVID-19 pandemic broadly, in real-time. Public health researchers supervise (...) this process daily, and provide insights to practitioners across a range of disciplines. Through this work, we have gleaned three lessons to address misinformation. Sources of vaccine misinformation are known; there is a need to operationalize learnings and engage the pro-vaccination majority in debunking vaccine-related misinformation. Existing systems can identify and track threats against health experts and institutions, which have been subject to unprecedented harassment. This supports their safety and helps prevent the further erosion of trust in public institutions. Responses to misinformation should draw from cross-sector crisis management best practices and address coordination gaps. Real-time monitoring and addressing misinformation should be a core function of public health, and public health should be a core use case for data scientists developing monitoring tools. The tools to accomplish these tasks are available; it remains up to us to prioritize them. (shrink)

What should the best practices be for modeling zoonotic disease risks, e.g. to anticipate the next pandemic, when background assumptions are unsettled or evolving rapidly? This challenge runs deeper than one might expect, all the way into how we model the robustness of contemporary phylogenetic inference and taxonomic classifications. Different and legitimate taxonomic assumptions can destabilize the putative objectivity of zoonotic risk assessments, thus potentially supporting inconsistent and overconfident policy decisions.

We explore the ethics of deliberately exposing consenting adults to SARS-CoV-2 to induce immunity to the virus (“DEI” for short). We explain what a responsible DEI program might look like. We explore a consequentialist argument for DEI according to which DEI is a viable harm-reduction strategy. Then we consider a non-consequentialist argument for DEI that draws on the moral significance of consent. Additionally, we consider arguments for the view that DEI is unethical on the grounds that, given that large-scale DEI (...) would be highly likely to result in some severe illnesses and deaths, DEI amounts to a form of killing. Our thesis is that incorporating a DEI program alongside the status-quo “calibrate-the-curve” responses could have significant advantages at the early stages of pandemics. These potential advantages mean that, at a minimum, research into DEI would have been justified early in the COVID-19 pandemic, and that DEI programs should be explored as potential additions to our overall approach to emerging pandemics in the future. (shrink)

By examining the global public good nature of pandemic preparedness we can identify key social justice issues that need to be confronted to increase citizens’ voluntary compliance with prevention and mitigation measures. As people tend to cooperate on a voluntary basis only with systems they consider fair, it becomes difficult to ensure compliance with public health measures in a context of extreme inequality. Among the major inequalities that need to be addressed we can find major differences in the extensiveness and (...) intensiveness of quarantine experiences, lack of opportunities to participate in common efforts, hardship in complying with disease control recommendations, and an unfair distribution of the cooperative surplus. (shrink)

Were governments justified in imposing lockdowns to contain the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic? We argue that a convincing answer to this question is to date wanting, by critically analyzing the factual basis of a recent paper, “How Government Leaders Violated Their Epistemic Duties During the SARS-CoV-2 Crisis” (Winsberg et al. 2020). In their paper, Winsberg et al. argue that government leaders did not, at the beginning of the pandemic, meet the epistemic requirements necessitated to impose lockdowns. We focus on (...) Winsberg et al.’s contentions that knowledge about COVID-19 resultant projections were inadequate; that epidemiologists were biased in their estimates of relevant figures; that there was insufficient evidence supporting the efficacy of lockdowns; and that lockdowns cause more harm than good. We argue that none of these claims are sufficiently supported by evidence, thus impairing their case against lockdowns, and leaving open the question of whether lockdowns were justified. (shrink)

We were slightly concerned, upon having read Eric Winsberg, Jason Brennan and Chris Surprenant’s reply to our paper “Were Lockdowns Justified? A Return to the Facts and Evidence”, that they may have fundamentally misunderstood the nature of our argument, so we issue the following clarification, along with a comment on our motivations for writing such a piece, for the interested reader.

From governments to the general public, one may ask about the possible contributions of historians, if any, to the understanding and management of global disasters, as e.g. the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019. Given the confuse situation at the onset of the pandemic in terms of diagnosis, treatment, and prevention, a look into past experience with nonconventional medicine seemed relevant. In the present study I surveyed secondary literature on the role of Chinese medicine, Āyurveda, and homeopathy over time. The quantitative results (...) were disappointing: nothing on Āyurveda, and one single study each on Chinese medicine and homeopathy. The quality of the former compensates for the numerical short age. The case of homeopathy is rather sui generis, since this medical system was born and blossomed during epidemics and pandemics. I conclude with a short comment on reference sources, which might serve as point of departure for future studies of Āyurveda in epidemics. (shrink)