Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 356

Four ethical challenges in exiting Covid-19 rules

In France, to leave their houses, people must fill in a form that allows them to perform essential jobs, attend medical appointments or go shopping for daily needs, an errand for which people have one hour only and must stay within one kilometre of their homes. The certificates must be shown on demand. Breaching ‘confinement’ rules risks fines and jail. A relaxation on some of these rules is currently underway.

Such is life in France under the ‘lockdown’ imposed to stop new infections from the coronavirus. This ‘suppression’ strategy is one of two broad options leaders in charge of democracies have adopted to fight the disease.

Liberty suppressed at the expense of the economy

These lockdowns dispense with liberty to halt the transmission of the virus. The suppression option comes with about as brutal an economic shock as can be self-inflicted because all physical businesses but essential services are shut down. But if the medical emergency were beaten and the public were confident about resuming normal life, the economy would be poised to recover. Risks of this approach include that lockdowns are never all encompassing so there is no guarantee the disease can be eradicated.

Most problematic of all is that the disease could resume its menace when the population is ‘unlocked’.

These countries, after isolating the vulnerable, try and slow the spread of the virus through their populations in the hope to suppress it enough for medical authorities to cope and a vaccine might be developed (though none appears likely soon). Within this strategy, at the relaxed end of restrictions, sits the aim of allowing a population to develop a community, or ‘herd’, immunity or resistance to the disease via a manageable level of infections and possibly a vaccine, a common way for most viruses to be contained.

When pursing mitigation, officials shut as little of society as possible until the spread of the virus is contained. (The northern hemisphere hopes warmer weather will slow the pandemic.) How much of the economy is closed varies across countries. The risks with the mitigation approach are that more lives might be lost, infections might spiral beyond the ability of medical facilities to cope and the economic shock, though initially milder than compared with the lockdown blow, persists longer and proves larger, especially if a spooked public voluntarily locks itself down.

Lives versus livelihood

How then to judge the ethics behind choosing suppression or mitigation? At a surface level, the decision appears an ethical choice between lives and livelihood, though, at a deeper level, the choice is between the lives taken by Covid-19 versus the lives lost and ruined over the longer term by the steps taken to contain the pandemic.

Given such unenviable choices and with no clear ‘right’ answer, one approach to answering this question might be to draw upon different forms of ethical traditions to install guidelines for policymakers.

First, the cost of the decision must be spread fairly across society, and the disadvantaged, vulnerable and ill must be protected.

Second, measures should be reasonable both in their intent and their consequences even amid extreme circumstances.

Third, to do the least harm, policymakers should evaluate the unintended effects of their decisions and take steps to mitigate the damage.

Fourth, extreme steps, such as army patrols and curtailments on freedom, should be relaxed as soon as possible.

Even within this framework, policymakers are in an unenviable situation because the scientific characteristics of COVID-19 are unclear. Policymakers had to judge what the death toll might be from either approach and think through the unintended consequences of each option. Flow-on effects of lockdowns might be a jump in family violence and mental health issues. Officials needed to estimate the economic damage of each approach with no precedents to guide them. They needed to ask themselves which option might be less likely to ruin a generation’s job prospects and impoverish society for decades, which can lead over time to an increase in deaths of stress, despair, substance abuse, etc.

Even though the battle against COVID-19 is far from won, we can say that both approaches can be supported by sound ethical arguments even if the logic behind each judgement call is different. While only hindsight will prove which approach was the most effective, it would be hard to say any democratic government has acted unethically in its fight against the coronavirus, even allowing for mistakes.

It can be said too that, given the economic and social damage Covid-19 will inflict, policymakers are bound to confront even harder ethical choices in coming years than those they faced during the emergency phase of the crisis.

To be sure, it won’t be much consolation to think that policymakers acted ethically if the social and economic consequences of their decisions prove immense. In some ways, the ethical choices surrounding covid-19 are no different from other weighty decisions governments make all the time when they implicitly put a price on life.

Perhaps, in time, COVID-19’s greatest ethical lesson might be how it exposed the ethics of societies before the pandemic hit. The countries that might be judged to have failed the common good would be those with poor healthcare systems, no pandemic contingency plans, few locally produced essential medical supplies, limited manufacturing to convert and, having stretched government finances, had scant ability to protect their populations without risking their prosperity. That would be many of them.

 

Michael Collins is an Investment Specialist at Magellan Asset Management, a sponsor of Firstlinks. This article is for general information purposes only, not investment advice. For the full version of this article and to view sources, go to: https://www.magellangroup.com.au/insights/.

For more articles and papers from Magellan, please click here.

 

RELATED ARTICLES

The green lining of COVID-19: a time for change

A hard dose reality check on vaccines

How we have invested during COVID-19

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Super changes, the Budget and 2021 versus 2022

Josh Frydenberg's third budget contained changes to superannuation and other rules but their effective date is expected to be 1 July 2022. Take care not to confuse them with changes due on 1 July 2021.

Noel's share winners and loser plus budget reality check

Among the share success stories is a poor personal experience as Telstra's service needs improving. Plus why the new budget announcements on downsizing and buying a home don't deserve the super hype.

Grantham interview on the coming day of reckoning

Jeremy Grantham has seen it all before, with bubbles every 15 years or so. The higher you go, the longer and greater the fall. You can have a high-priced asset or a high-yielding asset, but not both at the same time.

Whoyagonnacall? 10 unspoken risks buying off-the-plan

All new apartment buildings have defects, and inexperienced owners assume someone else will fix them. But developers and builders will not volunteer to spend time and money unless someone fights them. Part 1

Buffett says stock picking is too hard for most investors

Warren Buffett explained why he believes most investors should not pick stocks but simply own an S&P 500 index fund. "There's a lot more to picking stocks than figuring out what’s going to be a wonderful industry."

Should investors brace for uncomfortably high inflation?

The global recession came quickly and deeply but it has given way to a strong rebound. What are the lessons for investors, how should a portfolio change and what role will inflation play?

Latest Updates

Exchange traded products

ETFs are the Marvel of listed galaxies, even with star WAR

Until 2018, LICs and LITs dominated ETFs, much like the Star Wars franchise was the most lucrative in the world until Marvel came along. Now ETFs are double their rivals, just as Marvel conquered Star Wars.

Shares

Four leading tech stocks now look cheap

There are few opportunities to buy tech heavyweights at attractive prices. In Morningstar’s view, four global leaders are trading at decent discounts to their fair values, indicating potential for upside.

Shares

Why copper prices are at all-time highs

Known as Dr Copper for the uncanny way its price anticipates future economic activity, copper has hit all-time highs. What are the forces at play and strategies to benefit from the electric metal’s strength?

Economy

Baby bust: will infertility shape Australia's future?

In 1961, Australian women had 3.5 children on average but by 2018, this figure stood at just 1.7. Falling fertility creates a shift in demographics and the ratio of retirees to working-age people.

SMSF strategies

The Ultimate SMSF EOFY Checklist 2021

The end of FY2021 means rules and regulations to check for members of public super funds and SMSFs. Take advantage of opportunities but also avoid a knock on the door. Here are 25 items to check.

Economy

How long will the bad inflation news last?

The answer to whether the US inflation increase will prove temporary or permanent depends on the rates of growth of the quantity of money. It needs to be brought down to about 0.3% a month, and that's a problem.

Economy

The ‘cosmic’ forces leading the US to Modern Monetary Theory

If the world’s largest economy adopted a true MMT framework, the investment implications would be enormous. Economic growth would be materially greater but inflation and interest rates would also be much higher.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2021 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.

Website Development by Master Publisher.