Hastings Cent Rep. 2023 Jul;53(4):3-9. doi: 10.1002/hast.1495.
Public health responses to the Covid-19 pandemic included various measures to mitigate the spread of the virus. Among these, the most restrictive was a broad category referred to as "lockdowns." We argue that the reasoning offered in favor of extended lockdowns-those lasting several months or longer-did not adequately account for a host of countervailing considerations, including the impact on mental illness, education, employment, and marginalized communities as well as health, educational, and economic inequities. Furthermore, justifications offered for extended lockdowns set aside a basic tenet of public health ethics: restrictions on liberty and autonomy should be the least intrusive means of achieving the desired end. Since it is now clear that extended lockdowns cause severe harm to many vulnerable populations, the burden of proof is on those who would advocate for them, and there must be a much higher bar to implement an extended lockdown, with high-quality evidence that the benefit would substantially exceed its harm.
公共卫生应对新冠疫情大流行的措施包括各种旨在减缓病毒传播的措施。其中，限制最严格的是被广泛称为“封锁”的措施。我们认为，为延长封锁时间（持续数月或更长时间）辩护的理由没有充分考虑到一系列相反的考虑因素，包括对精神疾病、教育、就业和边缘化社区的影响，以及健康、教育和经济方面的不平等。此外，为延长封锁时间辩护的理由忽视了公共卫生伦理的一个基本原则：限制自由和自主权应该是实现预期目标的最不具侵犯性的手段。既然现在已经清楚地表明，延长封锁时间会对许多弱势群体造成严重伤害，那么主张延长封锁时间的人就必须承担举证责任，而且必须有更高的标准来实施延长封锁时间，必须有高质量的证据表明其收益将大大超过其危害。
