ArticleAsian bioethics review2021
COVID-19: Against a Lockdown Approach.
Article in Asian bioethics review, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Should governments moralize health?Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2025Article
- The Ethical Assessment of the Stay-At-Home Order in South Africa in Light of The Universal Declaration of Bioethics And Human Rights (UNESCO).Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2024Article
- A Scalar Approach to Vaccination Ethics.The journal of ethics · 2024Article
- The Ethical Significance of Post-Vaccination COVID-19 Transmission Dynamics.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2023Article
- Moralization and Mismoralization in Public Health.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2022Article
- Altruistic Vaccination: Insights from Two Focus Group Studies.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2022Article
- Inequalities in the Challenges Affecting Children and their Families during COVID-19 with School Closures and Reopenings: A Qualitative Study.Public health ethics · 2022Article
- Institutional Responsibility is Prior to Personal Responsibility in a Pandemic.The Journal of value inquiry · 2022Article
- Aggressive measures, rising inequalities, and mass formation during the COVID-19 crisis: An overview and proposed way forward.Frontiers in public health · 2022Review
- Reply to a commentary on Swedish policy analysis for Covid-19.Health policy and technology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Governments around the world have faced the challenge of how to respond to the recent outbreak of a novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Some have reacted by greatly restricting the freedom of citizens, while others have opted for less drastic policies. In this paper, I draw a parallel with vaccination ethics to conceptualize two distinct approaches to COVID-19 that I call altruistic and lockdown. Given that the individual measures necessary to limit the spread of the virus can in principle be achieved voluntarily as well as through enforcement, the question arises of how much freedom governments ought to give citizens to adopt the required measures. I argue that an altruistic approach is preferable on moral grounds: it preserves important citizen freedoms, avoids a number of potential injustices, and gives people a much-needed sense of meaning in precarious times.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.