Were lockdowns justified? A return to the facts and evidence

verfasst von: Philippe Carl van Baßhuysen, Lucie Alexandra White
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.
Organisationseinheit(en): Institut für Philosophie
Externe Organisation(en): Utrecht University
Typ: Artikel
Journal: Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal
Band: 31
Seiten: 405-428
Anzahl der Seiten: 24
ISSN: 1054-6863
Publikationsdatum: 12.2021
Publikationsstatus: Veröffentlicht
Peer-reviewed: Ja
ASJC Scopus Sachgebiete: Gesundheit (Sozialwissenschaften), Health policy, Probleme, Ethik und rechtliche Aspekte, Wissenschaftsgeschichte und -philosophie
Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung: SDG 3 – Gute Gesundheit und Wohlergehen
Elektronische Version(en): https://philarchive.org/rec/VANHPO-4 (Zugang: Offen)
https://doi.org/10.1353/ken.2021.0028 (Zugang: Geschlossen)

BibTeX

@article{a9e53f3af280401782367a6ac36a9ab1,
title = "Were lockdowns justified? A return to the facts and evidence",
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{\textquoteright}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.",
author = "{van Ba{\ss}huysen}, {Philippe Carl} and White, {Lucie Alexandra}",
year = "2021",
month = dec,
doi = "10.1353/ken.2021.0028",
language = "English",
volume = "31",
pages = "405--428",
journal = "Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal",
issn = "1054-6863",
publisher = "Johns Hopkins University Press",
number = "4",
}