Were lockdowns justified? A return to the facts and evidence

authored by: 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.
Organisation(s): Institute of Philosophy
External Organisation(s): Utrecht University
Type: Article
Journal: Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal
Volume: 31
Pages: 405-428
No. of pages: 24
ISSN: 1054-6863
Publication date: 12.2021
Publication status: Published
Peer reviewed: Yes
ASJC Scopus subject areas: Health(social science), Health Policy, Issues, ethics and legal aspects, History and Philosophy of Science
Sustainable Development Goals: SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
Electronic version(s): https://philarchive.org/rec/VANHPO-4 (Access: Open)
https://doi.org/10.1353/ken.2021.0028 (Access: Closed)

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",
}