Rights redistribution and COVID-19 lockdown policy.

Area of Science:

• Political Economy
• Public Health Policy
• Ethics

Background:

• The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated unprecedented public health interventions, including mandatory lockdowns and shelter-in-place orders.
• The rationale behind these coercive policies, particularly the infringement on individual liberties for public health, remains a subject of debate.
• Understanding the ethical and economic underpinnings of such policies is crucial for future crisis management.

Purpose of the Study:

• To investigate the fundamental tenet underlying the public policy of lockdown by fiat during the COVID-19 pandemic.
• To analyze the rationale of mandatory shelter-in-place policies as a coercive interpersonal exchange of rights.
• To compare the normative principles of utilitarianism and Rawlsianism in the context of lockdown policies.

Main Methods:

• Comparative analysis of normative principles (utilitarianism vs. Rawlsianism) within positive political economy.
• Application of a thought experiment to illustrate the redistribution of rights.
• Examination of factual applications and constraints influencing policy decisions.

Main Results:

• Lockdown by fiat is identified as a policy closer to a maximin equity criterion (Rawlsianism) than a utilitarian one.
• The policy represents a coercive, rather than voluntary, exchange of rights, prioritizing health over liberty.
• Factual applications demonstrate a fiat redistribution of liberty rights in favor of health rights, from the least to the most affected.

Conclusions:

• Mandatory lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic can be understood through the lens of a maximin equity principle.
• The coercive redistribution of rights, while infringing on liberty, was a predictable policy choice under specific constraints.
• The findings offer insights into the ethical and economic justifications for public health mandates during pandemics.