Lives saved and lost in the first six month of the US COVID-19 pandemic: A retrospective cost-benefit analysis.

In the beginning of the COVID-19 US epidemic in March 2020, sweeping lockdowns and other aggressive measures were put in place and retained in many states until end of August of 2020; the ensuing economic downturn has led many to question the wisdom of the early COVID-19 policy measures in the US. This study's objective was to evaluate the cost and benefit of the US COVID-19-mitigating policy intervention during the first six month of the pandemic in terms of COVID-19 mortality potentially averted, versus mortality potentially attributable to the economic downturn. We conducted a synthesis-based retrospective cost-benefit analysis of the full complex of US federal, state, and local COVID-19-mitigating measures, including lockdowns and all other COVID-19-mitigating measures, against the counterfactual scenario involving no public health intervention. We derived parameter estimates from a rapid review and synthesis of recent epidemiologic studies and economic literature on regulation-attributable mortality. According to our estimates, the policy intervention saved 866,350-1,711,150 lives (4,886,214-9,650,886 quality-adjusted life-years), while mortality attributable to the economic downturn was 57,922-245,055 lives (2,093,811-8,858,444 life-years). We conclude that the number of lives saved by the spring-summer lockdowns and other COVID-19-mitigation was greater than the number of lives potentially lost due to the economic downturn. However, the net impact on quality-adjusted life expectancy is ambiguous.

Ethics-driven policy framework for implementation of movement restrictions in pandemics.

In the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, countries across the globe undertook several stringent movement restrictions to prevent the virus spread. In April 2020, around 3.9 billion people in 90 countries were contained in their homes. Discourse on the ethical questions raised by such restrictions while historically rich is absent when it comes to pragmatic policy considerations by the decision-makers. Drawing from the existing literature, we present a unified ethical principles-pragmatic considerations-policy indicators framework flexibly applicable across different countries and contexts to assess the ethical soundness of movement-restricting policies. Our framework consolidates 11 unique but related ethical principles (harm, justifiability, proportionality, least restrictive means, utility efficiency, reciprocity, transparency, relevance, equity, accountability, and cost and feasibility). We mapped each ethical principle to answerable questions or pragmatic considerations to subsequently generate 34 policy indicators. These policy indicators can help policymakers and health practitioners to decide the ethically substantiated initiation of movement restrictions, monitor progress and systematically evaluate the imposed restrictions. As an example, we applied the framework to evaluate the first two phases of the largest lockdown (March-May 2020) implemented nationwide in India for its adherence to ethical principles. The policy indicators revealed ethical lapses in proportionality, utility efficiency and accountability for India's lockdown that should be focused on in subsequent restrictions. The framework possesses value towards ensuring that movement-restrictive public health interventions across different parts of the world in the ongoing pandemic and possible future outbreaks are ethically sound.

Integrity during pandemic times: The case for flexible adamancy.

The Covid-19 pandemic has dominated people's lives since late 2019, for more than nine months now. Healthcare resources and medicine have been completely consumed by the Covid 19 illness globally. This is a particularly difficult time for health systems because of the onerous responsibility to care for large numbers of sick people, protecting populations from contracting the infection by effective quarantine, isolation, and containment measures. In addition to this burden of work, healthcare providers are also overcome by fear of contracting the infection and transmitting it to their loved ones. It is during such difficult times that the integrity of healthcare providers is challenged. In this paper I will describe some challenges that a healthcare provider in a typical low resource setting faces during this pandemic time, and will propose the idea of "flexible adamancy" to address these challenges to the health system's integrity.

The Cost of Coronavirus Obligations: Respecting the Letter and Spirit of Lockdown Regulations.

We all now know that the novel coronavirus is anything but a common cold. The pandemic has created many new obligations for all of us, several of which come with serious costs to our quality of life. But in some cases, the guidance and the law are open to a degree of interpretation, leaving us to decide what is the ethical (or unethical but desired) course of action. Because of the high cost of some of the obligations, a conflict of interest can arise between what we want to do and what it is right to do. And so, some people choose to respect only the letter of the law, but not the spirit, or not to respect even the spirit of the guidelines. This paper identifies and describes the new obligations imposed on us all by the pandemic, considers their costs in terms of the good life, and provides an ethical analysis of two personal and two public cases in terms of the letter and spirit of the guidance and legislation.

Ethical Challenges in Health Care Policy during COVID-19 Pandemic in Italy.

Since the outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, Italy has proven to be one of the countries with the highest coronavirus-linked death rate. To reduce the impact of SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, the Italian Government decision-makers issued a series of law decrees that imposed measures limiting social contacts, stopped non-essential production activities, and restructured public health care in order to privilege assistance to patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. Health care services were substantially limited including planned hospitalization and elective surgeries. These substantial measures were criticized due to their impact on individual rights including freedom and autonomy, but were justified by the awareness that hospitals would have been unable to cope with the surge of infected people who needed treatment for COVID-19. The imbalance between the need to guarantee ordinary care and to deal with the pandemic, in a context of limited health resources, raises ethical concerns as well as clinical management issues. The emergency scenario caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in the lockdown phase, led the Government and health care decision-makers to prioritize community safety above the individuals' rights. This new community-centered approach to clinical care has created tension among the practitioners and exposed health workers to malpractice claims. Reducing the morbidity and mortality rates of the COVID-19 pandemic is the priority of every government, but the legitimate question remains whether the policy that supports this measure could be less harmful for the health care system.

Return to Status Quo Ante: The Need for Robust and Reversible Pandemic Emergency Measures.

This paper presents a normative analysis of restrictive measures in response to a pandemic emergency. It applies to the context presented by the Corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global outbreak of 2019, as well as to future pandemics. First, a Millian-liberal argument justifies lockdown measures in order to protect liberty under pandemic conditions, consistent with commonly accepted principles of public health ethics. Second, a wider argument contextualizes specific issues that attend acting on the justified lockdown for western liberal democratic states, as modeled on discourse and accounted for by Jürgen Habermas. The authors argue that a range of norms are constructed in societies that, justifiably, need to be curtailed for the pandemic. The state has to take on the unusual role of sole guardian of norms under emergency pandemic conditions. Consistently with both the Millian-liberal justification and elements of Habermasian discourse ethics, they argue that that role can only be justified where it includes strategy for how to return political decisionmaking to the status quo ante. This is because emergency conditions are only justified as a means to protecting prepandemic norms. To this end, the authors propose that an emergency power committee is necessary to guarantee that state action during pandemic is aimed at re-establishing the conditions of legitimacy of government action that ecological factors (a virus) have temporarily curtailed.

Ethical Considerations for Restrictive and Physical Distancing Measures in Brazil During COVID-19: Facilitators and Barriers.

COVID-19 was recognized as a pandemic on March 11, 2020. Nine days later in Brazil, community transmission was deemed ongoing, and following what was already being put in place in various affected countries, restrictive and physical distancing measures that varied in severity across the different states were adopted. Adherence to restrictive and physical distancing measures depends on the general acceptance of public health measures as well as communities' financial leverage. This article aims to explore and discuss ethical facilitators and barriers to the implementation of physical distancing measures within three dimensions: political, socio-economic, and scientific. Furthermore, we would like to discuss ways to ethically promote restrictive and physical distancing measures in a large and unequal country like Brazil. There is an urgent need for transparent, consistent, and inclusive communication with the public, respecting the most vulnerable populations and attempting to minimize the disproportionate burden on them.

[Bioethics, Human Rights and COVID-19]. / Bioética, Derechos Humanos y COVID-19.

In this paper present, from a bioethical perspective, a reflection on how to reconcile efforts to combat the COVID-19 pandemic with the safeguard of human rights. To do this, I develop three points. First, the regulatory framework that justifies the restriction or suspension of rights in the face of serious threats to public health. Second, the declarations of the international bioethics committees on the way in which human rights should be protected during public health crisis. And third, a review of the main rights threatened both by the public health crisis and by the means adopted to combat it. Before going into each of these points, I offer a preliminary note to clarify certain legal concepts and underline the need to overcome disjunctive approaches in considering human rights.

COVID-19 and the ethics of quarantine: a lesson from the Eyam plague.

The recent outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus is posing many different challenges to local communities, directly affected by the pandemic, and to the global community, trying to find how to respond to this threat in a larger scale. The history of the Eyam Plague, read in light of Ross Upshur's Four Principles for the Justification of Public Health Intervention, and of the Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, could provide useful guidance in navigating the complex ethical issues that arise when quarantine measures need to be put in place.

SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: An overview.

By the end of May 2020, SARS-CoV-2 pandemic caused more than 350,000 deaths worldwide. In the first months, there have been uncertainties on almost any area: infection transmission route, virus origin and persistence in the environment, diagnostic tests, therapeutic approach, high-risk subjects, lethality, and containment policies. We provide an updated summary of the current knowledge on the pandemic, discussing the available evidence on the effectiveness of the adopted mitigation strategies.

COVID-19 and quarantine orders: A practical approach.

Quarantine is a very effective method for containing the spread of highly infectious diseases in large populations during a pandemic, but it is only effective if properly implemented. The co-operation and compliance of people entering quarantine are critical to its success. However, owing to the isolating and social distancing nature of quarantine, it often leads to extreme economic hardship and shortages in basic needs such as food, medicine, water and communication - and to the curtailment of certain universal social norms such as attending a parent's funeral. To escape these hardships, people often refuse to enter voluntary quarantine, or breach quarantine rules. In these circumstances, health authorities are obliged to act in the best interests of the public and obtain court orders to force some people into quarantine. In further extreme circumstances, when a national lockdown is ordered, non-compliance with quarantine measures may result in arrests and penalties. The scope of this article is limited to the period prior to and following such a lockdown, during which quarantine may still be vital for the containment of COVID-19. Because a quarantine order will deprive an individual of his or her freedom, this must be carefully balanced with the public interest. This article explains the legal and ethical considerations of this balancing exercise and provides practical guidance for obtaining quarantine orders.