Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38047996›Full record

ArticleJournal of bioethical inquiry2023

Reelin' In The Years: Age and Selective Restriction of Liberty in the COVID-19 Pandemic.

David Motorniak, Julian Savulescu, Alberto Giubilini

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

David MotorniakFaculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Australia.
Julian SavulescuYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Alberto GiubiliniOxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics and Wellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. alberto.giubilini@philosophy.ox.ac.uk.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During the COVID-19 pandemic, focused protection strategies including selective lockdowns of the elderly were proposed as alternatives to general lockdowns. These selective restrictions would consist of isolating only those most at risk of COVID-19 hospitalization and subsequent use of healthcare resources. The proposal seems to have troubling implications, including the permissibility of selective lockdown on the basis of characteristics such as ethnicity, sex, disability, or BMI. Like age, these factors also correlated with an increased risk of hospitalization from COVID-19. In this paper, we argue that age has meaningful differences as a morally relevant characteristic in the justification for selective restrictions of liberty. Thus, it might justify selective freedom restrictions in a way in which other factors might not. We offer four moral domains that separate age from other proxies: empiricism, operationality, discrimination, and disparity.

Indexed as

COVID-19AgedCommunicable Disease ControlEthnicityHospitalizationHumansPandemicsAge discriminationCOVID-19Focused-protection strategiesFreedomSelective lockdown

Identifiers

PMID38047996
PMCPMC10943133

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.