Were Lockdowns Justified? A Return to the Facts and Evidence
Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 31 (4):405-428 (2021)
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 et al. 2020). In their
paper, Winsberg et al. argue that government leaders did not, at the beginning of the pandemic,
meet the epistemic requirements necessitated to impose lockdowns. We focus on Winsberg et
al.’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.
Keywords
Categories
(categorize this paper)
Reprint years
2021
PhilPapers/Archive ID
VANHPO-4
Upload history
Added to PP index
2021-01-08
Total views
929 ( #6,456 of 70,271 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
255 ( #1,883 of 70,271 )
2021-01-08
Total views
929 ( #6,456 of 70,271 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
255 ( #1,883 of 70,271 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.