Details
| Originalsprache | Englisch |
|---|---|
| Seiten (von - bis) | 405-428 |
| Seitenumfang | 24 |
| Fachzeitschrift | Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal |
| Jahrgang | 31 |
| Ausgabenummer | 4 |
| Publikationsstatus | Veröffentlicht - Dez. 2021 |
Abstract
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, Brennan, and Suprenant 2020). In their paper, Winsberg, Brennan, and Suprenant argue that government leaders did not, at the beginning of the pandemic, meet the epistemic requirements necessitated to impose lockdowns. We focus on Winsberg, Brennan, and Suprenant’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.
ASJC Scopus Sachgebiete
- Sozialwissenschaften (insg.)
- Gesundheit (Sozialwissenschaften)
- Medizin (insg.)
- Health policy
- Pflege (insg.)
- Probleme, Ethik und rechtliche Aspekte
- Geisteswissenschaftliche Fächer (insg.)
- Wissenschaftsgeschichte und -philosophie
Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung
Zitieren
- Standard
- Harvard
- Apa
- Vancouver
- BibTex
- RIS
in: Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, Jahrgang 31, Nr. 4, 12.2021, S. 405-428.
Publikation: Beitrag in Fachzeitschrift › Artikel › Forschung › Peer-Review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Were lockdowns justified? A return to the facts and evidence
AU - van Baßhuysen, Philippe Carl
AU - White, Lucie Alexandra
PY - 2021/12
Y1 - 2021/12
N2 - 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, Brennan, and Suprenant 2020). In their paper, Winsberg, Brennan, and Suprenant argue that government leaders did not, at the beginning of the pandemic, meet the epistemic requirements necessitated to impose lockdowns. We focus on Winsberg, Brennan, and Suprenant’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.
AB - 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, Brennan, and Suprenant 2020). In their paper, Winsberg, Brennan, and Suprenant argue that government leaders did not, at the beginning of the pandemic, meet the epistemic requirements necessitated to impose lockdowns. We focus on Winsberg, Brennan, and Suprenant’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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85121835868&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1353/ken.2021.0028
DO - 10.1353/ken.2021.0028
M3 - Article
VL - 31
SP - 405
EP - 428
JO - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal
JF - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal
SN - 1054-6863
IS - 4
ER -