Were lockdowns justified? A return to the facts and evidence

van Basshuysen, Philippe and White, Lucie (2021) Were lockdowns justified? A return to the facts and evidence. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 31 (4). 405 - 428. ISSN 1054-6863

Text (VANHPO-4v2) - Accepted Version Download (383kB)

• https://muse.jhu.edu/article/840500/pdf

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.

Item Type:	Article
Official URL:	https://muse.jhu.edu/journal/107
Additional Information:	© 2021 by Johns Hopkins University Press
Divisions:	Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method
Subjects:	H Social Sciences > HV Social pathology. Social and public welfare. Criminology R Medicine > RA Public aspects of medicine > RA0421 Public health. Hygiene. Preventive Medicine
Date Deposited:	10 Dec 2021 13:06
Last Modified:	30 Apr 2024 02:15
URI:	http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/112944

Actions (login required)

View Item