Read on Twitter
The analogy below has several problems:1. Causation of harm due to spread of infection is more complex
2. Most actions that spread #covid19 are normally accepted social behaviour (drink driving less so)
3. Punitive measures are (therefore) likely to be counterproductive https://twitter.com/EpiEllie/status/1358533342015197185
1/ The principle at work is a moral one, not an epidemiological one.
Epidemiologists calculate risks, but don't generally have expertise re: such principles
There is, however, fantastic work on social risk acceptance by experts in other disciplines: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1026005915919
Epidemiologists calculate risks, but don't generally have expertise re: such principles
There is, however, fantastic work on social risk acceptance by experts in other disciplines: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1026005915919
2/ With others, I have worked on moral responsibility and infectious disease transmission in the context of vaccination
Risk imposition is problematic, but it is not simply a matter of saying that certain anti-vaxxers are responsible for particular harm https://jme.bmj.com/content/42/12/762
Risk imposition is problematic, but it is not simply a matter of saying that certain anti-vaxxers are responsible for particular harm https://jme.bmj.com/content/42/12/762
3/ Infectious disease transmission is (usually) a problem of collective action
Whereas drink driving is usually a problem of individual action
So, both causation and moral evaluation of behaviour are more complex for infectious diseases
Whereas drink driving is usually a problem of individual action
So, both causation and moral evaluation of behaviour are more complex for infectious diseases
4/ One way in which drink driving and #covid19 risk behaviours are similar is that:
Most car trips by drink drivers harm nobody and the driver gets home safely
Most people infected with #covid19 infect nobody else (see below) https://twitter.com/ID_ethics/status/1319483408636989441?s=20
Most car trips by drink drivers harm nobody and the driver gets home safely
Most people infected with #covid19 infect nobody else (see below) https://twitter.com/ID_ethics/status/1319483408636989441?s=20
5/ The above is not to say that we should permit drink driving or other types of risk imposition, just that
1. Luck is involved, specifically moral luck (discussed in vaccination paper above):
and
2. We should not be too quick to blame people
1. Luck is involved, specifically moral luck (discussed in vaccination paper above):
and
2. We should not be too quick to blame people
6/ To determine what kinds of risks society should accept, we need a more careful analysis of the risks involved, and these need to be weighed against other important social / ethical values, e.g. liberty, fairness, other types of (health or non-health) benefits/risks, etc.
6/ To return to the analogy, one implication is that we should have legal punishments for "COVID risk decisions" (c.f. drink driving) but this would result in punishing just about any form of human interaction - likely not (always) justified by the risks involved
7/ It has now been extensively documented that punishment for "COVID risk decisions" unfairly burdens the poor, the young, and in some cases marginalised social groups
It also gives people perverse incentives to avoid diagnosis and potentially beneficial public health measures
It also gives people perverse incentives to avoid diagnosis and potentially beneficial public health measures
8/ In short, the analogy between drink driving and "COVID risk decisions" is not so simple, and punishment is not necessarily the best way of improving public health
