In ‘Does zero-COVID neglect health disparities?’ we made the case that strict zero-COVID policies implemented during the coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) pandemic raise health equity concerns so serious that these policies are not ethically sustainable.1 Zero-COVID, which has dominated many Pacific Rim societies, sets zero deaths from COVID-19 as a goal, and aims to reach it by forcefully containing transmission through short-term lockdowns, followed by stringent find, test, trace and isolate methods. Since the paper appeared in 2021, the Omicron variant (...) and subvariants took hold, making a strict zero goal unattainable and leading many countries to abandon it. Careful ethical analysis of zero-COVID’s impact remains crucially important, however, not only because the novel coronavirus continues to surprise us, but also to ensure lessons learnt from this pandemic are carried forward to future pandemics. In ‘Zero-COVID and health inequities’,2 Schaefer argues that it is possible to pursue zero-COVID yet offset any negative impacts on disadvantaged groups. Citing Singapore, where zero-COVID led to outbreaks in crowded and unsanitary migrant workers dormitories, Schaefer notes the government offset these effects, setting up less densely populated ‘quick build dormitories’ that caused daily case counts to drop, even while zero-COVID remained …. (shrink)

Jecker and Au’s paper raises important issues concerning health equity in pandemic responses, and the importance of considering the long-term effects of pandemic strategy on population health and well-being.1 We welcome their focus on the experience of Asian countries, including Japan. However, we have some concerns with both the distinction which they draw between elimination and mitigation, and their account of the nature and origins of the Japanese response to the COVID-19 pandemic. First, we believe that the distinction between elimination (...) and mitigation is not fine grained enough to capture the various strategies which countries have taken towards the pandemic. Many of Jecker and Au’s criticisms of the elimination strategy relate to specific policies such as lockdowns, travel restrictions and restrictions on businesses, which have been employed by numerous countries irrespective of their end goal. By contrast to the simple elimination/mitigation dichotomy with which Jecker and Au work, Baker et al have identified five separate COVID-19 strategies, namely: exclusion, elimination, suppression, mitigation and no substantive strategy.2 Baker et al define an elimination strategy as ‘maximum action to exclude disease and eliminate community transmission’ with the goal of reaching ‘zero [disease] transmission in the community’. On this account, Japan’s strategy does …. (shrink)