We analyse insufficient epistemic pluralism and associated problems in science-based policy advice during the COVID-19 pandemic drawing on specific arguments in Paul Feyerabend’s philosophy. Our goal is twofold: to deepen our understanding of the epistemic shortcomings in science-based policy during the pandemic, and to assess the merits and problems of Feyerabend’s arguments for epistemic pluralism as well as their relevance for policy-making. We discuss opportunities and challenges of integrating a plurality of viewpoints from within and outside science into (...) policy advice thus contributing to discussions about normative issues concerning evidence and expertise in policy-making. (shrink)

The UK has been ‘following the science’ in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in line with the national framework for the use of scientific advice in assessment of risk. We argue that the way in which it does so is unsatisfactory in two important respects. Firstly, pandemic policy making is not based on a comprehensive assessment of policy impacts. And secondly, the focus on reasonable worst-case scenarios as a way of managing uncertainty results in a loss of decision-relevant (...) information and does not provide a coherent basis for policy making. (shrink)

During the COVID-19 pandemic, several hospitals implemented “birthing alone” policies, banning companions from accompanying individuals giving birth. We offer an ethical analysis of these policies. First, we examine them through a consequentialist framework of risks and benefits. Second, we consider the significance of birth, highlighting the unique ways in which risks, relationships, and rights are understood in the context of obstetrics. We conclude that birthing alone policies are largely unjustified, as the harm they are certain to (...) cause outweighs their possible benefits and because they fail to take into account what matters to mothers. (shrink)

In ‘Does zero-COVID neglect health disparities?’ we made the case that strict zero-COVID policies implemented during the coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) pandemic raise health equity concerns so serious that these policies are not ethically sustainable.1 Zero-COVID, which has dominated many Pacific Rim societies, sets zero deaths from COVID-19 as a goal, and aims to reach it by forcefully containing transmission through short-term lockdowns, followed by stringent find, test, trace and isolate methods. Since the paper appeared in 2021, (...) the Omicron variant and subvariants took hold, making a strict zero goal unattainable and leading many countries to abandon it. Careful ethical analysis of zero-COVID’s impact remains crucially important, however, not only because the novel coronavirus continues to surprise us, but also to ensure lessons learnt from this pandemic are carried forward to future pandemics. In ‘Zero-COVID and health inequities’,2 Schaefer argues that it is possible to pursue zero-COVID yet offset any negative impacts on disadvantaged groups. Citing Singapore, where zero-COVID led to outbreaks in crowded and unsanitary migrant workers dormitories, Schaefer notes the government offset these effects, setting up less densely populated ‘quick build dormitories’ that caused daily case counts to drop, even while zero-COVID remained …. (shrink)

An inordinate number of low wage workers in essential industries are Black, Hispanic, or Latino, immigrants or refugees — groups beset by centuries of discrimination and burdened with disproportionate but preventable harms during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This study examines the evolving role of governments in cultural policy implementation in France, the United Kingdom, and the United States before, during, and after the COVID-19 crisis. The findings reveal distinct cultural policy frameworks before the pandemic, influenced by the unique path dependency of each country. However, in response to the crisis, these countries have converged, experiencing increased government intervention to address national challenges. Notably, the United States, contrary to past efforts, has augmented support for the arts, particularly (...) through the National Endowment for the Arts. The research aims to offer comparative insights into cultural policy during national crises, offering practical lessons for countries facing similar institutional and circumstantial conditions. (shrink)

This paper argues that the existing definition of pandemics is not nuanced enough, because it is predicated solely on the criterion of spread, rather than on the criteria of spread and severity. This definitional challenge is what I call ‘the conflation problem’: there is a conflation of two different realities of global health, namely global health emergencies (i.e., severe communicable diseases that spread across borders) and nonemergencies (i.e., communicable or noncommunicable diseases that spread across borders and that may be severe). (...) To put this argument forth, this paper begins by discussing the existing and internationally accepted definition of pandemics, its requirements, as well as its strengths (section 1). Section 2 then considers the problem with the standard definition of pandemics (i.e., the conflation problem) and some examples of it. Finally, section 3 evaluates some practical implications of the conflation problem to then explore conceptual clarity as the adequate solution. (shrink)

While the unprecedented lockdown measures were at the heart of the debate in the first year of the pandemic, the focus since then has shifted to vaccination issues. The reason, of course, is that vaccines and vaccinations have become available by now. All experts agree: If mankind had failed to develop vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, the death toll would have been much higher. This issue seeks to explore what could be described as a “generational approach to vaccinations”. The question “What (...) can we do to avoid future pandemics?” is related to different aspects of the failures and successes of humanity’s vaccination strategy against SARS-CoV-2. Pathogens are among the existential risks to humanity that could potentially kill a large part of it in a very short time. For all the tragedy and horror it has brought upon the world, the Corona virus has not been lethal on such a large, all-encompassing scale. But it could serve as a wake-up call for more and better prevention in the future, put differently: as a call to build a “preventive society”. When people look back to the year 2022 from the year 2200, will they think of the absence of mandatory vaccination as a dangerous anachronism? And will the unequal global distribution of vaccines be seen as an unbearable vice of our epoch? And will “human infection studies” still be dismissed as unethical if a dangerous new virus boards human bodies? If intergenerational justice means improving the life chances and living conditions of future generations to the largest possible extent, then its link to (the avoidance) of infectious diseases is obvious. We should protect future generations from foreseeable damage if we have the power to do so. “We” is humankind in its entirety. Politically, humanity is divided into many single nations. But biologically, as members of the same species, we share the same vulnerability regardless of ethnicity. The regular reader of this journal might wonder why this issue of IGJR has a different structure. An unprecedented pandemic calls for an unprecedented reaction and therefore IGJR 1/2021 and 2/2021 are special issues that deal with this disruptive event. We have invited several health experts, politicians and scholars alike to share their perspectives in short opinion pieces (instead of regular peer-reviewed articles). And we are exploring something new: the publication of a FRFG policy paper. This policy paper starts off with a historical overview on how pandemics have afflicted humanity in the past. It separates moral from legal duties and formulates “epidemiological imperatives” – the way of thinking of a responsible and solidary individual facing the task of preventing an outbreak of epidemics in a community. With the discovery of vaccines, and their availability, the catalogue of duties is increased by one more: to get the jabs as an act of solidarity with others, including future generations. This would prevent states from being forced to take disease control measures that bring about drastic collateral damage. During the first two years of the Corona pandemic, states have imposed lockdowns. The closure of schools has put a special burden on the youngest members of society. This could have been prevented during the second and the further waves. The policy paper also calls for more government funding for prophylactic vaccine research and for the designation of vaccines as “global public goods”. The issue then moves on to a section dedicated to opinion papers by various different authors. The first paper, written by Agnes Binagwaho and Kedest Mathewos (both from University of Global Health Equity, Rwanda), focuses on the issue of health inequity, a concern which has gained more and more traction during the Covid-19 pandemic. The paper examines how vaccine distribution during the pandemic was mainly focused on the global north and how such actions might affect future generations’ perception of what is just, fair and morally correct. The second paper, by Samantha Vanderslott (University of Oxford), focuses on the right and wrongdoings connected to pandemic preparedness and response. The third paper, authored by Rajeev Sadanandan (Health Systems Transformation Platform, India), talks about the lessons that can and should be drawn from child immunisations. The fourth paper, by Adriano Mannino (LMU and Parmenides Foundation, Munich), delves into the question how future generations will assess our actions and our response to the current pandemic. The fifth and final paper, written by Jörg Tremmel (FRFG and University Tübingen), is centered around the question whether human infection studies could have been implemented during the early stages of the pandemic to minimise deaths and severe infections. The issue concludes with two reviews on recent books by Alberto Giubilini and Katie Wright. In his review of Giubilini’s The Ethics of Vaccination, Marius Kunte notes that it contains a “thought-provoking plea” for individual, collective and institutional obligations to reach high vaccination rates. Judith Kausch-Zongo concludes her review of Wright’s Gender, Migration and the Intergenerational Transfer of Human Wellbeing with a special emphasis on the book’s empirical findings, and praises it in its entirety as “undoubtedly important”. Both books serve as poignant reminders of how sustainable societies can only emerge once the challenges revolving around its most vulnerable members have been properly addressed. (shrink)

The paper is an attempt to analyse the benefits that remote work could bring in the development of the country. It is organized in three parts. In the first part it engages with the concept of public policy, how it is shaped and should be done to make visible problems that need to be addressed. The second part analysis the benefits of teleworking and potential models for city organization and population distribution to support country development. The last part analyses the (...) case of Albania to discover that remote work, demography, and country development are concepts not yet analyzed in connection for exploring the benefits they could bring. The paper concludes that government should invest in developing human resources in the field of digitalization, so that the number of employees who could telework and companies that could use that expertise is increased. In this way, companies and staff do not necessarily need to locate in the capital or big cities but could locate in medium size cities and periphery. This would contribute to the development of currently neglected areas and decrease living expenses in big cities, making thus more affordable the life for the low-income workers. In doing so, not only the living conditions will improve but the gap between centre and periphery will narrow down and lead to a better distribution of economic benefits across country. (shrink)

In this paper, I contend that the uncertainty faced by policy-makers in the COVID-19 pandemic goes beyond the one modelled in standard decision theory. A philosophical analysis of the nature of this uncertainty could suggest some principles to guide policy-making.

The Covid-19 pandemic has shaken the world. It has presented us with a series of new challenges, but the policy response may be difficult due to the severe uncertainty of our circumstances. While pressure to take timely action may push towards less inclusive decision procedures, in this paper I argue that precisely our current uncertainty provides reasons to include stakeholders in collective decision-making. Decision-making during the pandemic faces uncertainty that goes beyond the standard, probabilistic one of Bayesian decision (...) theory. Agents may be uncertain not just about factual properties of the world, but also about how to model their decision problems and about the values of the possible consequences of their options. As different stakeholders may have irreconcilable disagreement about how to resolve these uncertainties, decision-making procedures should take everybody’s perspectives into account. Moreover, those communities that are hit harder by the pandemic are also those that are typically excluded from knowledge production. Thus, in the face of Covid-19 uncertainty, both democratic and epistemic considerations highlight the importance of stakeholders’ inclusion in policy decision-making. (shrink)

This paper uses the example of the COVID-19 pandemic to analyse the danger associated with insufficient epistemic pluralism in evidence-based public health policy. Drawing on certain elements in Paul Feyerabend’s political philosophy of science, it discusses reasons for implementing more pluralism as well as challenges to be tackled on the way forward.

This book contains original essays that look at contagious/infectious disease pandemics and the ethical public policy and administration these have entailed. In particular, the pandemics of the 1918 flu pandemic, HIV in the 1990s, SARS in 2003, Ebola from 2014–2016 and the novel COVID-19 in 2020 are highlighted. The contributions in this work offer the reader insights in these and several other recent pandemics that present differently—either via contagion or mortality rate—and how each should be addressed by countries of (...) various sorts. This book is a must for the ongoing debate on how we should treat public health crises, such as the one we have all just encountered in the novel COVID-19 pandemic. (shrink)

Faced with the threat of pandemic influenza, several countries have made the decision to put a number of measures in place which have been incorporated into national plans. In view of the magnitude of the powers and responsibilities that States assume in the event of a pandemic, a review of the various national preparedness and response plans for pandemic influenza brought to light a series of extremely important ethical concerns. Nevertheless, in spite of the recent emergence of (...) literature focusing specifically on the ethical aspects of pandemics, too few studies explicitly examine public participation as one means of ethical contribution to public health policies. Thus this article seeks, in the first place, to present an analysis of the various national preparedness and response plans for pandemic influenza, and secondly, to outline the role that the plans envisage for ethics and more importantly for public participation. (shrink)

Faced with the threat of pandemic influenza, several countries have made the decision to put a number of measures in place which have been incorporated into national plans. In view of the magnitude of the powers and responsibilities that States assume in the event of a pandemic, a review of the various national preparedness and response plans for pandemic influenza brought to light a series of extremely important ethical concerns. Nevertheless, in spite of the recent emergence of (...) literature focusing specifically on the ethical aspects of pandemics, too few studies explicitly examine public participation as one means of ethical contribution to public health policies. Thus this article seeks, in the first place, to present an analysis of the various national preparedness and response plans for pandemic influenza, and secondly, to outline the role that the plans envisage for ethics and more importantly for public participation. (shrink)

The current UK policy for the distribution of scarce vaccination in an influenza pandemic is ethically dubious. It is based on the planned outcome of the maximum health benefit in terms of the saving of lives and the reduction of illness. To that end, the population is classified in terms of particular priority groups. An alternative policy with a non-consequentialist rationale is proposed in the present work. The state should give the vaccination, in the first instance, to those who (...) are at risk of catching the pandemic flu in the line of their duties of public employment. Thereafter, if there is not sufficient vaccine to give all citizens equally an effective dose, the state should give all citizens an equal chance of receiving an effective dose. This would be the just thing to do because the state has a duty to treat each and all of its citizens impartially and they have a corresponding right to such impartial treatment. Although this article specifically refers to the UK, it is considered that the suggested alternative policy would be applicable generally. The duty to act justly is not merely a local one. (shrink)

Many legal scholars well recognize that, in some instances, support for a law or policy may be primarily because of its expressive function, i.e. the statements it makes about underlying values. In these cases, the expressive content of a law or policy may actually overshadow its central purpose. Examples of this phenomenon, according to Cass Sunstein, include, for example, regulations against hate speech in the USA. He suggests that achieving the consequence (prohibiting hateful speech against certain groups) may not be (...) the real focus (central purpose) of the law. Rather, the real focus is on the social meaning of these regulations—that bigotry is unacceptable in a liberal society. In this way, a particular law or policy can operate on many levels—while aiming to achieve a particular objective or behavior, it can also be a valuable tool for achieving other important social goals through its expressive function. This article applies this insight to the realm of public health policy, with particular attention to the case of pandemic planning, and suggests that public health policy and its overall goals may be well-served by deliberate regard for, and appropriate utilization of, the expressive function. (shrink)

Equity is a foundational concept for the new World Health Organization (WHO) Pandemic Treaty. WHO Member States are currently negotiating to turn this undefined concept into tangible outcomes by borrowing a policy mechanism from international environmental law: “access and benefit-sharing” (ABS).

Global health emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic are contexts in which it is critical to draw upon learning from prior research and to conduct novel research to inform real-time decision-making and pandemic responses. While research is vitally important, however, emergencies are radically non-ideal contexts for its conduct, due to exceptional uncertainty, urgency, disruption, health needs, and strain on existing health systems, amongst other challenges. This generates novel ethical challenges and a broader conception of research ethics is necessary (...) to effectively address the complexity of pandemic research contexts. Going beyond traditional approaches to research ethics centring on the design of specific studies, this broader conception requires consideration of fundamental questions relating to the exercise of power and influence throughout research pathways, and a broader attention to both salient ethical issues, and the ethical responsibilities of stakeholders. These include important questions about responsibilities to gather evidence and generate knowledge systematically during emergencies, to implement policy responses in ways that are amenable to evaluation, and even potential moral obligations to participate in research. In situations of heightened uncertainty, additional questions arise about what constitutes sufficient evidence to justify the development and implementation of policy responses, and the responsibilities of scientific and social science researchers involved in policy-making processes. The four cases in this chapter prompt reflection on evolving and at times competing values and responsibilities of policy-makers, regulators, health authorities and researchers during the design and conduct of research, and proposed early implementation of research findings. These cases highlight issues arising when conducting research of national importance in a pandemic, where researchers are required to liaise with authorities responsible for pandemic responses and address complex ethical issues, including protecting the interests of participants and publics when tensions arise between prioritising the completion of research and accelerating the rollout of novel health interventions. This chapter invites reflection on the practical ethical implications of commitments to undertake research during emergencies, including the nature and scope of the relevant responsibilities of a range of stakeholders. (shrink)

Through an interpretative phenomenological perspective, this article analyses the education policy implemented in Spain following the declaration of the state of alarm due to Covid-19 pandemic. It questions the measures implemented (i.e. the confinement of the population to their homes and school closures, others related to the right of minors to study and to managing the school year), and the main effects on children and families from an inclusive standpoint. Three main categories emerged from the analysis: 1) access to (...) education, 2) the relationships between, and the participation of, members of the educational community, 3) learning acquisition. The results underline that the effects have not been the same for different families, especially among more vulnerable groups. Marginality and socio-educative inequality have increased. It is essential to make more flexible policies to accommodate diversity and ensure the principles of equity. In this direction, family’s socio-educational role has to be acknowledged and their needs assumed as a priority. (shrink)

The COVID-19 vaccine has been a miraculous, life-saving advance, offering staggering efficacy in adults, and was developed with astonishing speed. The time from sequencing the virus to authorizing the first COVID-19 vaccine was so brisk even the optimists appear close-minded. Yet, simultaneously, United States’ COVID-19 vaccination roll-out and related policies have contained missed opportunities, errors, run counter to evidence-based medicine, and revealed limitations in the judgment of public policymakers. Misplaced utilization, contradictory messaging, and poor deployment in those who would (...) benefit most—the elderly and high-risk—alongside unrealistic messaging, exaggeration, and coercion in those who benefit least—young, healthy Americans—is at the heart. It is important to consider the history of COVID-19 vaccines to identify where we succeeded and where we failed, and the effects that these errors may have more broadly on vaccination hesitancy and routine childhood immunization programs in the decades to come. (shrink)

The detection and spread of pandemic 2009 H1N1 influenza in the United States led to a complex and multi-faceted response by the public health system that lasted more than a year. When the first domestic case of the virus was detected in California on April 15, 2009, and a second, unrelated case was identified more than 130 miles away in the same state on April 17, 2009, the unique combination of influenza virus genes in addition to its emergence and (...) rapid spread at the end of the typical Northern Hemisphere influenza season suggested the potential for a high morbidity, high mortality event. In response, federal, state, and local public health officials conducted epidemiologic investigations with federal and state laboratory support to help to determine the scope of the H1N1 pandemic. On April 26, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services declared a public health emergency that was renewed through June 23, 2010. The pandemic that ensued tested virtually every aspect of U.S. public health preparedness and response systems, from laboratory capabilities and capacities to social distancing plans. (shrink)

The COVID-19 pandemic poses extraordinary public health challenges. In order to respond to such challenges, most democracies have relied on so-called ‘evidence-based’ policies, which supposedly devolve to science the burden of their justification. However, the biomedical sciences can only provide a theory-laden evidential basis, while reliable statistical data for policy support is often scarce. Therefore, scientific evidence alone cannot legitimise COVID-19 public health policies, which are ultimately based on political decisions. Given this inevitable input on policy-making, the (...) risk of arbitrariness is ubiquitous and democratic scrutiny becomes essential to counter it. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the standards of scientific and democratic scrutiny have been, as a matter of fact, substantially lowered. This erosion potentially damages democracy. (shrink)

Globally, a traditional management model has generally been used to manage disaster situations, including in Bangladesh. In Bangladesh, the government mostly uses the preparedness policy for pandemic outbreak case management. With regard to the limitations arising from the pandemic outbreak the current research will investigate the following questions: when facing a devastating situation, what exactly is the nature of the pandemic outbreak management model incorporated at the governmental level? Keeping these questions in mind, the intention of the (...) existing model is to provide smooth and appropriate assistance to recover from a pandemic outbreak, and to implement effective governance of the situation. This research will identify deficiencies in the current epidemic management policy in Bangladesh, and will assist in forming a new model and developing a systematic procedure for managing future pandemic outbreak situations. The main deficiency in Bangladesh’s pandemic management is that the policy paper has failed to identify all hazardous events that may occur in a pandemic outbreak. In most cases, it has underestimated the issues of bioethical responsibility toward the different stakeholders affected during the devastating situation of a pandemic outbreak. The policy does not emphasize the bioethical model; therefore, it fails to encourage support for either public protection or an ethically friendly management system. The model proposed in this article demonstrates an appropriate way to reduce or, if possible, avoid potential damages and losses from a pandemic outbreak. The model aims to prioritize the problems that need assistance to recover from the outbreak. (shrink)

Globally, a traditional management model has generally been used to manage disaster situations, including in Bangladesh. In Bangladesh, the government mostly uses the preparedness policy for pandemic outbreak case management. With regard to the limitations arising from the pandemic outbreak the current research will investigate the following questions: when facing a devastating situation, what exactly is the nature of the pandemic outbreak management model incorporated at the governmental level? Keeping these questions in mind, the intention of the (...) existing model is to provide smooth and appropriate assistance to recover from a pandemic outbreak, and to implement effective governance of the situation. This research will identify deficiencies in the current epidemic management policy in Bangladesh, and will assist in forming a new model and developing a systematic procedure for managing future pandemic outbreak situations. The main deficiency in Bangladesh’s pandemic management is that the policy paper has failed to identify all hazardous events that may occur in a pandemic outbreak. In most cases, it has underestimated the issues of bioethical responsibility toward the different stakeholders affected during the devastating situation of a pandemic outbreak. The policy does not emphasize the bioethical model; therefore, it fails to encourage support for either public protection or an ethically friendly management system. The model proposed in this article demonstrates an appropriate way to reduce or, if possible, avoid potential damages and losses from a pandemic outbreak. The model aims to prioritize the problems that need assistance to recover from the outbreak. (shrink)

Current and past pandemics have several aspects in common. It is expected that all members of society contribute to beat it. But it is also clear that the risks associated with the pandemic are different for different groups. This makes that appeals to solidarity based on technocratic risk calculations are only partially successful. Objective ‘risks of transmission’ may, for example, be trumped by risks of letting down people in need of help or by missing out certain opportunities in life. (...) In this paper we argue that a rapprochement of the insights of standpoint epistemology with pandemic science and pandemic policy making may be an important step toward making pandemic science more accurate and pandemic calls for solidarity more effective. (shrink)

The declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic by the World Health Organization on March 11, 2020, led to unprecedented events. All regions of the world participated in implementing preventive health measures such as physical distancing, travel restrictions, self-isolation, quarantines, and facility closures. The pandemic started global disruption of socio-economic systems, covering the postponement or cancellation of public events, supply shortages, schools and universities’ closure, evacuation of foreign citizens, a rise in unemployment and inflation, misinformation, the anti-vaccine movement, and incidents (...) of discrimination toward people affected by or suspected of having coronavirus disease. Attempts have been made to protect the oldest age group at risk, but in many cases, this has led to over-restriction and age discrimination. The rationale for working on the Research Topic "Socio-economic systems in the post-pandemic world: Design thinking, strategic planning, management, and public policy" was the need to start reflecting on resilience and lessons learned from this public health event that revealed the global unpreparedness in critical areas. Also, the pandemic triggered both top-down and bottom-up responses that needed more in-depth analyzes. This Research Topic covers interdisciplinary contributions addressing new thinking, challenges, and transformations required for post-pandemic global, national, regional, and local realities. The presented Research Topic combines studies focused on recognizing the actions and interventions leading to the recovery of socio-economic systems during the tail end and after the pandemic. The studies delivered recommendations regarding, among others, the care of vulnerable, planning socio-economic restart, and imagining the "new normal.". (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)

Business and Society Review, Volume 127, Issue S1, Page 343-367, Spring 2022.

Public health emergencies such as pandemics can put health systems in a position where they need to ration medical equipment and interventions because the resources available are not sufficient to meet demand. In public health management, the fair allocation of resources is a permanent and cross-sector issue since resources, and especially economic resources, are not infinite. During the COVID-19 pandemic resources need to be allocated under conditions of extreme urgency and uncertainty. One very problematic aspect has concerned intensive care (...) medicine and age discrimination has been among the most hotly discussed issues, as age has been touted as a probable criterion for selection. In this paper we analyse some documents originating from scientific societies and medical associations, mainly related to EU sphere and available in English, French, Spanish and Italian, concerning the criteria for admission to the intensive care units. We highlights how, in most of these documents, it is explicitly stated that “age itself” is not a criterion for patient selection. Our conclusion is that these criteria should be defined in advance of a crisis situation and be grounded in clinical indicators. Establishing “cut-off” policies with regard to criteria such as age or chronic disability is definitely an unjustifiable form of discrimination even in the context of a public health emergency. (shrink)

The COVID-19 crisis has forced a difficult trade-off between limiting the health impacts of the virus and maintaining economic activity. Welfare economics offers tools to conceptualize this trade-off so that policy-makers and the public can see clearly what is at stake. We review four such tools: the Value of Statistical Life (VSL); the Value of Statistical Life Years (VSLYs); Quality-Adjusted Life-Years (QALYs); and social welfare analysis, and argue that the latter are superior. We also discuss how to choose policies (...) that differentially affect people’s wellbeing. We argue in favor of evaluating policies using a Social Welfare Function (SWF), which evaluates the possible distributions of wellbeing across individuals that may result from a policy. Such a function, we argue, should regard increases in the wellbeing of the less well-off as especially valuable. We then use a model to illustrate how such a framework can help evaluate two broad policy types in response to the pandemic: eradication of the virus, and more lenient control of the spread. Our model reveals how such evaluations depend on many empirical facts but also on key value judgments about the relative importance of health and on the extent of special concern for the worse off. The purpose of this brief is not to make precise recommendations, as conditions vary widely across countries and over time, but to provide a methodology. (shrink)

The COVID-19 pandemic affected education institutions just like several other sectors. These institutions, which are among the places where people are found collectively, were the first places that were closed for precaution. Some problems of distance education conducted in online platforms which were assumed upon the termination of face-to-face education emerged in time. Especially in this urgent solution, where the workload of teachers has increased, some application difficulties have been identified in foreign language teaching. From this point of view, (...) considering the foreign language education policy and planning, this study deals with the distance education practices of English teachers, the difficulties they encounter in the process, and their solution proposals. The research, which was designed as a qualitative study, was conducted with a case study design. The participants of the research are 13 English teachers working at the secondary school level in different districts of Northern Cyprus determined by the homogeneous sampling method. The data were collected through semi-structured interviews developed by the researchers. The qualitative data were analyzed with descriptive analysis. As a result of the interviews with the teachers, it has been determined that there are problems related to technology, students, online classes, and planning in English teaching carried out with distance education applications. Accordingly, the teachers offered their recommendations that could be a solution to the existing problems. (shrink)

The emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic created considerable challenges for the food supply chain. One of the industries hardest hit was the agricultural and agri-foods industry. This industry has long faced worker shortages and regularly relied on temporary foreign workers. In this case, Roosters, a chicken processing and production company in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, had just come off a very costly 12-day closure following a COVID-19 exposure risk in two of its processing plants. With the company back in (...) operation a new safety policy has been implemented to limit future virus exposure and shutdown risks. The policy, however, targets a small group of temporary foreign workers, one of whom is challenging the lengths the company can go in the name of protecting employees from the virus and the company from losses due to closure. (shrink)

The Covid-19 pandemic triggered a crisis affecting many spheres of socio-economic life. Both the authorities and entrepreneurs found themselves in a new and unusual situation. The lockdown introduced in the Polish economy in March 2020 has changed drastically environment and conditions for entrepreneurs and companies in Poland. The article touches on the problem of changes in the system of formal and informal institutions during that period. An attempt was made to answer the question: to what extent was the institutional (...) state order compatible with the spontaneous order during that period, did the paths of entrepreneurs and the government meet and an agreement was reached in the name of setting a common policy direction to support the economy in the difficult period of the pandemic, or did the paths of these parties diverge? The research hypothesis requiring verification was that the institutional crisis in Poland deepened during the Covid-19 pandemic, as reflected in the slow erosion of the principles of institutional governance. The analysis shows that the progressing institutional weakness of the state during the period under review deepened the crisis of institutions. Its symptom was the gradual disappearance of social dialogue and arbitrary decisions taken by the government. The rules of law did not take into account the needs of entrepreneurs. Over time, the trust in the government and the law has declined. In a response to the prolonged lockdown in many sectors of the Polish economy, some desperate entrepreneurs took steps to circumvent the law, and there were active protests of entrepreneurs against the government’s decisions. The government might defend its authority only with ineffective repressions applied to entrepreneurs. (shrink)

Pandemic ethics raises unresolved, fundamental, and controversial questions. The defining feature of a pandemic is its scale—the simultaneous threat to millions or even billions of lives. That scale creates and necessitates awful choices since the wellbeing and lives of all cannot be protected. Central to decisions are questions of the value of life, but also core human rights doctrines including the right to health, individual freedom and autonomy. Whether allocating limited supplies of ventilators, novel treatments, and vaccines or (...) making policies that restrict movement and freedom, which values are most important? How should risk and burden be distributed? Should society save the greatest number of lives or accept higher deaths for the sake of other ethical values? These questions touched the lives of billions during the COVID pandemic. However, children who were home-schooled during the coronavirus outbreak will almost certainly face another pandemic in their lifetime – one at least as bad, and potentially much worse than this one. In this volume, bioethicists Dominic Wilkinson and Julian Savulescu have gathered leading philosophers, lawyers, economists, and bioethicists to address the global response to the pandemic, questions of liberty, how to balance competing ethical values and considerations of equality and inequality. The book critically reviews the COVID-19 pandemic to identify key lessons for “Disease X”, the currently unknown but serious global threat that lies ahead. (shrink)

On 11 March 2020, the World Health Organization declared a pandemic of the COVID-19 coronavirus disease that was first recognized in China in late 2019. Among the primary effects caused by the pandemic, there was the dissemination of health preventive measures such as physical distancing, travel restrictions, self-isolation, quarantines, and facility closures. This includes the global disruption of socio-economic systems including the postponement or cancellation of various public events (e.g., sporting, cultural, or religious), supply shortages and fears of (...) the same, schools and universities closure, evacuation of foreign citizens, a rise of unemployment, changes in the international aid schemes, misinformation, and incidents of discrimination toward people affected by or suspected of having the COVID-19 disease. The pandemic has brought to the fore unpreparedness in critical areas that require attention, amid prospects and challenges. Moreover, considerable reorganization efforts are required with implications for assets, resources, norms, and value systems. COVID-19 is challenging the concept of globalization and stimulating responses at the levels of local and regional socio-economic systems that lead to the mobilization of assets that have been unrecognized earlier on, such as various forms of economic capital, social capital, cultural capital, human capital, and creative capital. For example, through digital channels, local groups are forming to create schemes of support for physical and mental wellbeing. These emerging exchanges lead to various social and technological innovations by building on skills and assets that are less important in the free-market economy, such as empathy, skills for crafts, making and fixing; locally grown microgreens; and micromanufacturing. Isolation and local living are also making it much harder to ignore the civic responsibilities towards communities, meant as individuals, vulnerable groups, and local businesses. Whilst the pandemic is limiting physical participation, this challenging time is uncovering alternative ways of mutual support, which may create long-term benefits for socio-economic systems, including environmental and biodiversity protection, reduction of the air pollution, and climate action. The pandemic’s threat to public health will hopefully be overcome with implications for disruption for an extended period that we are unable to forecast at this stage. It is key to focus on studies recognizing the activities and interventions leading to the recovery of socio-economic systems after the pandemic. Reflecting and planning on how societies and economies will go back to “business as usual” requires new forms of communication and cooperation, imaginative design thinking, new styles of management, as well as new tools and forms of participation in various public policies. Many questions related to the care of the vulnerable, economic restart, and the risk of future pandemics, to mention but a few, are already occupying the academic, scientific, experts, and activist communities, who have started to imagine the “new normal.”. (shrink)

BackgroundAfter the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic, governments established national lockdowns and social distancing as an effective plan to control this disease. As a result of the lockdown policies, diabetic patients` access to food products, medication, and routine follow-ups is disrupted, making it difficult for them to control their disease.MethodsInternational databases, including PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, and Scopus, were searched until April 2022. All observational studies included assessing the impact of lockdown and social distancing on eating habits, and (...) glycemic and anthropometric indices of diabetic patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Scale was used to assess the quality rating of the studies.ResultsOverall, 22 studies were included in this systematic review, the results of which varied in different communities. In most studies, consumption of grains, fruits, and vegetables was reported to increase. On the other hand, consumption of snacks and sweets was reported to increase in other surveys. During the COVID-19 lockdown, most diabetic patients preferred to cook meals at home, using less takeout, fast foods, and alcoholic drinks. Although the patients mostly improved their eating habits, the glycemic and anthropometric indices were contradictory in different studies. Studies showed that the eating habits of diabetic patients vary from country to country, even in some cases and studies done in the same country showed different results. For example, all the studies done in Japan showed an increase in the consumption of snacks and sweets, leading to weight gain in the patients. However, conflicting results in eating habits have been observed in studies conducted in India.ConclusionThe lockdown policies have led to a beneficial change in the eating habits of diabetic patients to consume more fruits and vegetables and reduce the consumption of animal protein products and alcoholic beverages. While some diabetic patients have increased consumption of snacks and sweets, leading to a disturbance in their glycemic and anthropometric indices control. Understanding the consequences of lockdown and social distancing of the diabetic patient during the COVID-19 pandemic can help public health authorities make better recommendations to improve glycemic control. (shrink)

This review seeks to evaluate certain aspects of “healthcare governance” during the Covid 19 pandemic, in particular the damage caused by policies based on unscientific views. Indeed, in addition to a health crisis, the pandemic coincided with a crisis of global governance that undermined scientific medicine, health systems and the communication of scientific data. This was partly driven by scientific denialism, exhibited most prominently by then-US president Donald Trump, with disastrous results in terms of health policy. Here (...) we examine articles appearing in Science, N Engl J Med, Sci Am and Front Public Health that adopt a political stance against such denialism, breaking with their traditional neutrality. The analysis addresses the effects of the pandemic on health systems and the general population, as well as on the ways in which science is produced and applied, together with its contradictions. It looks at how political and economic considerations resulted in inconsistent and contradictory models of scientific development that were to have disastrous effects on citizens’ health. In response to scientific denialism and the damage it can cause, we commend the OECD report entitled PISA 2018 Assessment and Analytical Framework, which highlights the role of education in the development of scientific literacy in the younger generations. We also consider the work of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), which recognises and celebrates the value of science in ensuring accessibility to knowledge and scientific endeavour in society. Our analysis suggests that scientific knowledge should be a fundamental tenet, equal to that of individual freedom, of political governance. In this way, health policies can respond more adequately to global threats. (shrink)

There are no egalitarians in a pandemic. The scale of the challenge for health systems and public policy means that there is an ineluctable need to prioritize the needs of the many. It is impossible to treat all citizens equally, and a failure to carefully consider the consequences of actions could lead to massive preventable loss of life. In a pandemic there is a strong ethical need to consider how to do most good overall. Utilitarianism is an influential (...) moral theory that states that the right action is the action that is expected to produce the greatest good. It offers clear operationalizable principles. In this paper we provide a summary of how utilitarianism could inform two challenging questions that have been important in the early phase of the pandemic: (a) Triage: which patients should receive access to a ventilator if there is overwhelming demand outstripping supply? (b) Lockdown: how should countries decide when to implement stringent social restrictions, balancing preventing deaths from COVID‐19 with causing deaths and reductions in well‐being from other causes? Our aim is not to argue that utilitarianism is the only relevant ethical theory, or in favour of a purely utilitarian approach. However, clearly considering which options will do the most good overall will help societies identify and consider the necessary cost of other values. Societies may choose either to embrace or not to embrace the utilitarian course, but with a clear understanding of the values involved and the price they are willing to pay. (shrink)

This monograph evaluates public policy responses to the Covid-19 pandemic through a public choice lens. The book compares two prominent, albeit mutually exclusive, theories in social sciences—public interest theory and public choice theory—and explores how their predictions perform within the framework of the Covid-19 pandemic. The chapters present different pandemic policies alongside empirical data in order to draw conclusions about their efficacy, and, in turn, draw conclusions about the veracity of each theory. By the end of (...) the volume, the reader will be able to draw their own conclusions about whether the pandemic policy responses served the public interest, as public interest theory suggests, or the personal interests of the politicians who implemented them, as public choice theory holds. (shrink)

Vietnam, with a geographical proximity and a high volume of trade with China, was the first country to record an outbreak of the new Coronavirus disease (COVID-19), caused by the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 or SARS-CoV-2. While the country was expected to have a high risk of transmission, as of April 4, 2020—in comparison to attempts to contain the disease around the world—responses from Vietnam are being seen as prompt and effective in protecting the interests of its citizens, (...) with 239 confirmed cases and no fatalities. This study analyzes the situation in terms of Vietnam’s policy response, social media and science journalism. A self-made web crawl engine was used to scan and collect official media news related to COVID-19 between the beginning of January and April 4, yielding a comprehensive dataset of 14,952 news items. The findings shed light on how Vietnam—despite being under-resourced—has demonstrated political readiness to combat the emerging pandemic since the earliest days. Timely communication on any developments of the outbreak from the government and the media, combined with up-to-date research on the new virus by the Vietnamese science community, have altogether provided reliable sources of information. By emphasizing the need for immediate and genuine cooperation between government, civil society and private individuals, the case study offers valuable lessons for other nations concerning not only the concurrent fight against the COVID-19 pandemic but also the overall responses to a public health crisis. (shrink)

Topicality of the research topic. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, there is an increase in the instability of the structure of ecosocial systems. Technological innovations have led to a sharp deterioration in natural social ecodynamics. The aim of the research is the conceptual modeling of the proliferation of biopolitics from the social sphere to the field of international relations with the subsequent transformation into a systemic factor of the global evolutionary process. Research methods and results. The model (...) is based on our previously proposed concept of a three-module stable evolutionary strategy of technogenic civilization. In relation to the triple spiral of anthropo-socio-technogenesis, i.e., the historical development of the cultural-ecological niche of Homo sapiens, constructed by him, this means the following. Periods of stable progressive growth of evolutionary and civilizational success are replaced by periods of various scales crisis, up to civilizational or even biological-evolutionary singularity. During the crisis, the importance of the political factor increases sharply, and over the past 50 years, this primarily relates to the field of biopolitics. The regional differentiation of the biopolitical sphere reconstruction during the fight against the pandemic will inevitably complicate international relations not only between regions that belong to different cultural and civilizational types. Probably less so, the same problems will affect the reconciliation of differences caused by geopolitical, interethnic, religious and even economic (competition) reasons. The first phase of the adaptive civilizational response is to reduce the degree of connection between the individual socio-cultural elements of modern civilization, i.e., slowing down the globalization process and intensifying interregional conflicts of various contents. In particular, such contradictions will be most acute in the post-Soviet geopolitical space, where the conditions of the civilizational rift are imposed on the conflicts of the transition period. Due to the specifics of modern high technologies, the process will enter the phase of global socio-techno-ecological self-developing systems reconstruction, which includes man as its element. And the obvious conclusion will be the transition of the development of biopolitical issues to a new, no longer international, but global-evolutionary level. In our understanding, transbiopolitics is a political issue related to the rationalization of the global evolutionary process. The latter will become a bearing element of the global process of evolution of the noosphere with the subsequent complication and increase of cohesion between separate sociocultural types which are a part of system of the modern globalizing civilization. (shrink)

Using data from 88 countries, we test hypotheses linking a country’s economic freedom and cultural values with the propensity and timing of decisions to impose stringent policies to combat the spread of Covid-19, as well as society’s compliance with those restrictive measures. Our analysis supports hypotheses that a country’s economic freedom and cultural dimensions of individualism and masculinity predict early implementation of stringent policies. After accounting for endogeneity, we find that individualism also helps explain residents’ compliance with stringent (...) measures. These findings illustrate how institutions and cultural values influence government policies and societal compliance. (shrink)

The recent Covid-19 pandemic has brought a broad range of ethical problems to the forefront, raising fundamental questions about the role of government in response to such outbreaks, the scarcity and allocation of health care resources, the unequal distribution of health risks and economic impacts, and the extent to which individual freedom can be restricted. In this clear introduction to the topic Iwao Hirose explores these ethical questions and analyzes the central issues in the ethics of pandemic response (...) and preparedness such as: The general nature of pandemics and the ethics of preparedness Ethical questions about general goals of pandemic response and preparedness The distribution of scarce resources, e.g., ventilators, hospital beds, antiviral drugs and vaccines Restrictions on individual freedom Ethical questions in the wake of pandemics, including contact-tracing, vaccine passports and socioeconomic inequalities. With the use of real-life examples and a clear philosophical approach, The Ethics of Pandemics is a much-needed introduction to some of the most important ethical issues surrounding pandemics. It is essential reading for students of ethics, bioethics, and political philosophy and will also be of interest to those working in related areas such as public policy, public health, health law, nursing and life sciences. (shrink)

The Covid-19 pandemic put forth a new kind of affective exhaustion. Being forced to stay at home, diminish social interactions and reduce the scale of their everyday mobility, many people experienced boredom, sluggishness, and existential immobility. While state-imposed pandemic policies changed rapidly, everyday life remained strangely unmoving. A sense of being stuck unfurled―as if not only social life, but time itself had come to a halt. At the same time, there was a latent sense of tension and (...) increased aggressiveness which became manifest not only in protests and riots, but also in the texture of everyday life. In this contribution, we argue that both of these states―the feeling of being stuck, and the feeling that this putative tranquility is nothing but the calm before a storm―can be conceptualized as affective stasis. Through a rearticulation of the ancient concept of stasis, we show that these two at first glance incongruous affective conditions are intricately entangled. In Ancient Greek, the term stasis meant “stand, standing, stance”. Being used in a wide variety of contexts―politics, navigation, sports, rhetoric, medicine, and others―stasis took on different meanings which can be semantically organized around two opposite poles: one is the total absence of motion, and the other is an event of radical and often violent social and political change. Drawing on affect theory, phenomenology, and ancient Greek semantics, we propose affective stasis as a novel conceptual framework for political phenomenology. (shrink)

The background paper provides an introduction to the concept of pandemics and to the ethical and political issues related with pandemic preparedness.

The Covid-19 pandemic has caused significant economic hardships for millions of people around the world. Meanwhile, many of the world’s richest people have seen their wealth increase substantially during the pandemic, despite the significant economic disruptions that it has caused on the whole. It is uncontroversial that these effects, which have exacerbated already unacceptable levels of poverty and inequality, call for robust policy responses from governments. In this paper, I argue that the disparate economic effects of the (...) class='Hi'>pandemic also generate direct obligations of justice for those who have benefitted from pandemic windfalls. Specifically, I argue that even if we accept that those who benefit from distributive injustice in the ordinary, predictable course of life within unjust institutions do not have direct obligations to redirect their unjust benefits to those who are unjustly disadvantaged, there are powerful reasons to hold that benefitting from pandemic windfalls does ground such an obligation. (shrink)

Developing World Bioethics, Volume 21, Issue 4, Page 173-186, December 2021.