Search

School closure is one of the most debated measures undertaken to contain the spread of the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. The pandemic has devastating health and socio-economic effects and must be contained, but schools play a vital role in present and future well-being, capabilities and health of children. We examine the detrimental consequences of both the closure and reopening of schools, by focusing on inequalities in the challenges affecting children and their families. This paper is grounded on Irish and Italian data from a multi-national longitudinal qualitative interview study. Research participants articulated a variety of issues and challenges that highlight inequalities in access to education during school closures, in the supportiveness of home setting, and in school preparedness to reopen, often mirroring or exacerbating pre-existing inequalities. The reported unequal lived experiences indicate that some harms are actionable, and already suggest some potential harm mitigation strategies. We conclude by advocating for enhanced public consultation to help mitigate the consequences of public dilemmas in general, and to help detect and tackle inadequacies and inequalities for school children through and beyond the pandemic, by learning from the experience of the concerned actors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the question, 'What do we owe each other as members of a global community during a global health crisis?' In tandem, it has raised underlying concerns about how we should prepare for the next infectious disease outbreak and what we owe to people in other countries during normal times. While the prevailing bioethics literature addresses these questions drawing on values and concepts prominent in the global north, this paper articulates responses prominent in sub-Saharan Africa. The paper first introduces a figurative 'global health village' to orient readers to African traditional thought. Next, it considers ethical requirements for governing a global health village, drawing on the ethic of ubuntu to formulate African renderings of solidarity, relational justice and sufficiency. The final section of the paper uses these values to critique current approaches, including COVAX, the vaccines pillar of the Access to COVID-19 Tools (ACT) accelerator, and a proposed international Pandemic Treaty. It proposes a path forward that better realizes ubuntu in global health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 pandemic during 2020–2022 raised ethical questions concerning the balance between individual autonomy and the protection of the population, vulnerable individuals and the healthcare system. Pediatric COVID-19 vaccination differs from, for example, measles vaccination in that children were not as severely affected. The main question concerning pediatric vaccination has been whether the autonomy of parents outweighs the protection of the population. When children are seen as mature enough to be granted autonomy, questions arise about whether they have the right to decline vaccination and who should make the decision when parents disagree with each other and/or the child. In this paper, I argue that children should be encouraged to not only take responsibility for themselves, but for others. The discussion of pediatric vaccination in cases where this kind of risk–benefit ratio exists extends beyond the 2020–2022 pandemic. The pandemic entailed a question that is crucial for the future of public health as a global problem, that is, to what extent children should be seen as responsible decision-makers who are capable of contributing to its management and potential solution. I conclude that society should encourage children to cultivate such responsibility, conceived as a virtue, in the context of public health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In late March 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Australia introduced mandatory 14-day supervised quarantine at hotels and other designated facilities for all international arrivals. From July 2020, most states and territories introduced a fixed charge for quarantine of up to $3220 per adult. The introduction of the fee was rationalised on the basis that Australians had been allowed sufficient time to return and there was a need to recover some of the cost associated with administering the program. Drawing on an empirical study of 58 returned Australian citizens and residents quarantined between March 2020 and January 2021, this paper aims to explore how people experienced paying for hotel quarantine, particularly with respect to fairness and relatedly, the principle of reciprocity. Reciprocity requires that the state has an obligation to assist individuals in discharging their duty to comply with public health measures and avoid disproportionate burdens accruing to populations or individuals. Though participants had varying opinions on whether they thought it fair to be charged for their quarantine, for many, the fee constituted a significant burden and source of stress. Given the undertaking of quarantine is primarily for the benefit of the public good, we argue the financial cost imposed on individuals does not meet the demands of reciprocity. It is imperative that future quarantine and isolation arrangements consider seriously the need to minimise burdens of individuals subject to such measures, and that fees do not become a new norm in public health and infectious disease control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses the fairness of geographically targeted vaccinations (GTVs). During the initial period of local and global vaccine scarcity, health authorities had to enact priority-setting strategies for mass vaccination campaigns against COVID-19. These strategies have in common that priority setting was based on personal characteristics, such as age, health status or profession. However, in 2021, an alternative to this strategy was employed in some countries, particularly Norway. In these countries, vaccine allocation was also based on the epidemiological situations in different regions, and vaccines were assigned based on local incidence rates. The aim of this article is to describe and examine how a geographical allocation mechanism may work by considering Norway as a case study and discuss what ethical issues may arise in this type of priority setting. We explain three core concepts: priority setting, geographical priority setting and GTVs. With a particular focus on Norway, we discuss the potential effects of GTV, the public perception of such a strategy, and if GTV can be considered a fair strategy. We conclude that the most reasonable defence of GTV seems to be through a consequentialist account that values both total health outcomes and more equal outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]