Pandemics

L'isolement social (désocialisation) implique une absence totale ou presque totale de contact entre un individu et la société. Cela peut être un problème pour les personnes de tout âge, bien que les symptômes puissent différer selon le groupe d'âge. L'isolement social peut inclure le fait de rester à la maison pendant de longues périodes et le manque de communication face à face avec la famille, les connaissances, les amis ou les collègues. L'isolement social peut conduire à des sentiments de solitude, (...) de peur des autres ou de mauvaise estime de soi. Nous ne pouvons pas exister indépendamment de nos relations avec les autres. Notre propre humanité est réduite lorsque les autres sont traités sans dignité et sans respect. Dans le même temps, causer du tort à une autre personne peut également affecter la perception de soi-même. Il s'avère que l'humanité d'une personne dépend de l'humanité de ceux qui l'entourent. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14145.79203. (shrink)

Izolarea socială (desocializarea) presupune o lipsă completă sau aproape completă de contact între un individ și societate. Aceasta poate fi o problemă pentru persoanele de orice vârstă, deși simptomele pot diferi în funcție de grupul de vârstă. Izolarea socială poate include șederea acasă pentru perioade îndelungate de timp, și lipsa comunicării față în față cu familia, cunoștințele, prietenii sau colegii de servici. Izolarea socială poate duce la sentimente de singurătate, frica de ceilalți sau stima de sine negativă. Nu putem exista (...) independent de relațiile noastre cu ceilalți. Propria umanitate este redusă atunci când alții sunt tratați fără demnitate și respect. În același timp, provocarea de rău altei persoane poate afecta și percepțiile despre sine. Rezultă că umanitatea unei persoane depinde de umanitatea celor din jurul ei. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27847.32166. (shrink)

Following the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic, Slavoj Žižek published a book called "Pandemic!: COVID-19 Shakes the World", which triggered a wave of reactions. In the book, he presents how the media ruthlessly exploited this subject, accentuating the panic. Many major studies have predicted the emergence of such a pandemic, but have been ignored by all governments, declaring them to be exaggerated. Žižek believes that the current pandemic has led to the bankruptcy of the current "barbaric" capitalism, wondering if the (...) path that humanity will take is a neo-communism (he describes himself as a "radical leftist" and a "communist in a qualified sense”). Žižek argues these ideas with the pandemic socio-political measures of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and the President of France, and the temporary nationalization of the railways by Boris Johnson. "Even [US President Donald] Trump transferred billions of dollars to the public. He issued calls to take over the private sector insofar as medical supplies are concerned." DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12914.12484. (shrink)

Suite à la déclaration de la pandémie COVID-19, Slavoj Žižek a publié un livre intitulé « Pandemic!: COVID-19 Shakes the World », qui a déclenché une vague de réactions. Dans le livre, il présente comment les médias ont impitoyablement exploité ce sujet, accentuant la panique. De nombreuses études majeures ont prédit l'émergence d'une telle pandémie, mais ont été ignorées par tous les gouvernements, les déclarant exagérées. Žižek estime que la pandémie actuelle a conduit à la faillite du capitalisme « barbare (...) » actuel, se demandant si le chemin que l'humanité empruntera est un néo-communisme (il se décrit lui-même comme un « radical de gauche » et un « communiste en non qualifié »). Žižek fait valoir ces idées avec les mesures sociopolitiques pandémiques de la chancelière allemande Angela Merkel et du président français, et la nationalisation temporaire des chemins de fer par Boris Johnson. « Même le président américain Donald Trump a transféré des milliards de dollars aux Américains. Il a appelé à la reprise du secteur privé en termes de fournitures médicales. » DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28160.66566. (shrink)

Une brève rétrospective du virus COVID-19 qui a causé la pandémie actuelle, son cycle de vie et son histoire. Réactions, mesures et effets de la pandémie COVID-19. Une présentation des diverses approches philosophiques, avec un accent sur la philosophie de la mort, l'écopsychanalyse, et un appel aux philosophies de Sigmund Freud et Albert Camus. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35853.36328 .

Virușii coabitează de cca. 300 milioane de ani cu oamenii. Uneori, virușii pot infecta oamenii pe scară largă. Dar, cum a fost posibilă actuala pandemie? Încălzirea globală determină fenomene meteorologice extreme care au dus la o creștere a bolilor infecțioase. Noul climat poate susține vectori epidemiologici pentru perioade mai lungi de timp, creând condiții mai favorabile replicării și apariția de noi vectori. În cazul bolilor infecțioase emergente, se consideră că există o graniță peste care s-a sărit deja. Virușii au, în (...) mod normal, o zonă nativă („rezervorul” lor), din care nu ar trebui să fie împinși afară. Se creează astfel o intimitate periculoasă, cu „puncte fierbinți” care includ locații precum piețele, care devin adevărate focare de epidemii. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16634.11202. (shrink)

In the case of the COVID-19 pandemic, there are some signs of a shift of paradigm, including the sudden disappearance of the wall ideology: a cough was enough to suddenly make it impossible to avoid the responsibility that each individual has towards all living beings for the simple fact that it is part of this world, and of the desire to be part of it. The whole is always involved in part, because everything is, in a sense, in everything and (...) in nature there are no autonomous regions that are an exception. The virus seems to restore the supremacy that once belonged to politics. One of the virtues of the virus is its ability to generate a more sober idea of freedom: to be free means to do what needs to be done in a specific situation. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20745.67681 . (shrink)

Le biopouvoir fait référence à la pratique des États-nations modernes à travers une explosion de techniques nombreuses et diverses pour parvenir à l'assujettissement des corps et au contrôle des populations. Foucault a utilisé le terme pour désigner spécifiquement les pratiques de santé publique, entre autres mécanismes de régulation. La biopolitique est un concept qui prend en compte la gestion de la vie et des populations d'une région gouvernée. La biopolitique produit une société disciplinaire généralisée et des contrôles réglementaires à travers (...) la biopolitique de la population. Giorgio Agamben déclare que ce qui se manifeste dans cette pandémie, c'est la tendance croissante à utiliser l'état d'urgence comme un paradigme normal de gouvernement. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31915.87840. (shrink)

From the existentialism of Albert Camus and Sartre, to the replacement of the exclusion ritual with the disciplinary mechanism of Michel Foucault, an ideal form of control of state authorities of all forms of "disorder", and viral modernity and bioinformationalism. And about the Gaia hypothesis, developed by James Lovelock and supported in the current pandemic by Bruno Latour. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34967.80801.

The largest medical institutions and various ethicists advocate a utilitarian approach in times of public health crises, to maximize benefits for society, in direct conflict with our usual (Kantian) view of respect for people as individuals. A central problem with utilitarianism is that there is no clear way to evaluate moral choices, including in medical decisions. In general, in medicine is respected the Kantian medical ethics. But in a pandemic, when resources are poor, deep choices of life and death must (...) be made. In these situations, the principles of utilitarianism offer the best answer, moving from a patient-centered thinking model to a society-centered thinking model. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36811.82728. (shrink)

O scurtă retrospectivă a virusul COVID-19 care a cauzat actuala pandemie, a cilului său de viață și a istoriei sale. Reacții, măsuri și efecte ale pandemiei COVID-19. O prezentare a diverselor abordări filosofice, cu accent pe filosofia morții, ecopsihanaliză, și apel la filosofiile lui Sigmund Freud și Albert Camus. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17900.59528.

Biopower refers to the practice of modern nation-states through an explosion of numerous and diverse techniques for achieving the subjugation of bodies and the control of populations. Foucault used the term to refer specifically to public health practices, among other regulatory mechanisms. Biopolitics is a concept that takes into account the management of the life and populations of a governed region. Biopolitics produces a generalized disciplinary society and regulatory controls through population biopolitics. Giorgio Agamben states that what is manifesting in (...) this pandemic is the growing tendency to use the state of emergency as a normal paradigm of government. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29380.04488 . (shrink)

Cele mai mari instituții medicale și diverși eticieni pledează pentru o abordare utilitaristă în perioadele de crize de sănătate publică, pentru a maximiza beneficiile pentru societate, în conflict direct cu viziunea noastră obișnuită (kantiană) privind respectul față de persoane ca indivizi. O problemă centrală a utilitarismului este că nu există nicio modalitate clară de a evalua alegerile morale, inclusiv în deciziile medicale. În general, în medicină se respectă etica medicală kantiană. Dar în pandemie, când resursele sunt sărace, trebuie făcute alegeri (...) profunde, de viață și moarte. În aceste situații principiile utilitarismului oferă cel mai bun răspuns, cu trecerea de la un model de gândire centrat pe pacient la un model de gândire centrat pe societate. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28443.69929. (shrink)

Bioputerea face referire la practica statelor naționale moderne prin o explozie de numeroase și diverse tehnici pentru realizarea subjugării corpurilor și controlul populațiilor. Foucault a folosit termenul pentru a se referi în mod specific la practicile de sănătate publică, printre alte mecanisme de reglementare. Biopolitica este un concept care ia în considerare administrarea vieții și a populațiilor unei regiuni guvernate. Biopolitica produce o societate disciplinară generalizată și controale de reglementare prin biopolitica populației. Giorgio Agamben afirmă că ceea ce se manifestă (...) în această pandemie este tendința crescândă de a folosi starea de excepție ca o paradigmă normală de guvernare. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13265.56161. (shrink)

A brief retrospective of the COVID-19 virus that caused the current pandemic, its life cycle and its history. Reactions, measures and effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. A presentation of various philosophical approaches, with an emphasis on the philosophy of death, eco-psychoanalysis, and appeal to the philosophies of Sigmund Freud and Albert Camus. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14848.25608.

După declararea pandemiei COVID-19, Slavoj Žižek a publicat o carte numită „Pandemic!: COVID-19 Shakes the World”, care a declanșat un val de reacții. În carte, el prezintă modul în care media a exploatat fără milă acest subiect, accentuând panica. Multe studii majore au prezis apariția unei astfel de pandemii, dar au fost ignorate de toate guvernele, declarându-le ca fiind exagerate. Žižek crede că actuala pandemie a dus la falimentul actualului capitalism ”barbar”, întrebându-se dacă nu cumva drumul pe care îl va (...) lua omenirea este un neo-comunism (el însuși se descrie ca un „radical de stânga” și un „comunist în sens calificat”). Žižek argumentează aceste idei cu măsurile socio-politice din pandemie ale cancelarului Germaniei, Angela Merkel și a președintelui Franței, și naționalizarea temporară a căilor ferate de către Boris Johnson. ”Chiar și președintele SUA, Donald Trump, a transferat miliarde de dolari americanilor. El a emis apeluri pentru preluarea sectorului privat în ceea ce privește materialele medicale.” DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31451.80167. (shrink)

De la existențialismul lui Albert Camus și Sartre, la înlocuirea ritualului de excludere cu mecanismul disciplinar al lui Michel Foucault, o formă ideală de control al autorităților statului a tuturor formelor de ”dezordine”, și modernitatea virală și bioinformaționalism. Și despre ipoteza Gaia, dezvoltată de James Lovelock și susținută în actuala pandemie de Bruno Latour. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31276.49284.

În cazul pandemiei COVID-19, există unele semne ale schimbării de paradigmă, inclusiv dispariția bruscă a ideologiei legate de „ziduri”: ”o tuse a fost suficientă pentru a face dintr-o dată imposibilă evitarea responsabilității pe care fiecare individ o are față de toate ființele vii pentru simplul fapt că este parte a acestei lumi, și a dorinței de a fi parte a ei”. Întregul este întotdeauna implicat în parte, pentru că totul este, într-un anumit sens, în tot și în natură nu există (...) regiuni autonome care să constituie o excepție. Virusul pare să restabilească supremația care a aparținut cândva politicii. Una din virtuțile virusului este capacitatea acestuia de a genera o idee mai sobră de libertate: a fi liber înseamnă a face ceea ce trebuie făcut într-o situație specifică. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29865.83041. (shrink)

Social isolation (desocialization) implies a complete or almost complete lack of contact between an individual and society. This can be a problem for people of any age, although the symptoms may differ depending on the age group. Social isolation can include staying home for long periods of time, and lack of face-to-face communication with family, acquaintances, friends, or co-workers. Social isolation can lead to feelings of loneliness, fear of others or negative self-esteem. We cannot exist independently of our relationships with (...) others. One's own humanity is reduced when others are treated without dignity and respect. At the same time, provoking harm to another person can also affect perceptions of oneself. It turns out that a person's humanity depends on the humanity of those around him. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35832.06405. (shrink)

The viruses coexist for approx. 300 million years with the humans. Sometimes viruses can infect people on a large scale. But how was the current pandemic possible? Global warming is causing extreme weather events that have led to an increase in infectious diseases. The new climate can support epidemiological vectors for longer periods of time, creating more favorable conditions for replication and the emergence of new vectors. In the case of emerging infectious diseases, it is considered that there is a (...) border that has already been crossed. Viruses normally have a native area (their "reservoir") from which they should not be pushed out. This creates a dangerous intimacy, with "hotspots" that include locations such as markets, which become real hotbeds of epidemics. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26974.87364 . (shrink)

De l'existentialisme d'Albert Camus et Sartre, au remplacement du rituel d'exclusion par le mécanisme disciplinaire de Michel Foucault, forme idéale de contrôle des autorités étatiques de toutes les formes de « désordre », et à la modernité virale et au bioinformationalisme. Et à propos de l'hypothèse Gaia, développée par James Lovelock et soutenue dans la pandémie actuelle par Bruno Latour. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20639.18089.

Les plus grandes institutions médicales et divers éthiciens préconisent une approche utilitariste en période de crise de santé publique, afin de maximiser les bénéfices pour la société, en conflit direct avec notre vision habituelle (kantienne) du respect des personnes en tant qu'individus. Un problème central de l'utilitarisme est qu'il n'y a pas de moyen clair d'évaluer les choix moraux, y compris dans les décisions médicales. En général, l'éthique médicale kantienne est respectée en médecine. Mais dans une pandémie, lorsque les ressources (...) sont pauvres, des choix profonds de vie ou de mort doivent être faits. Dans ces situations, les principes de l'utilitarisme offrent la meilleure réponse, avec le passage d'un modèle de pensée centré sur le patient à un modèle de pensée centré sur la société. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34596.30088. (shrink)

الأمن في الغالب خرافة؛ فلا وجود له في الطبيعة، ولا ينعم به بنو البشر ككل. تجنب الخطر ليس أكثر أمانًا على المدى الطويل من التعرض المباشر له، الحياة إما مغامرة جريئة، أو لا شيء»! مقولة للأديبة الأمريكية «هيلين كيلر»، تُقتبس عادةً في سياقات برامج التنمية البشرية؛ فلأن تُواجه الخطر وأنت حُر ٌخيرٌ لك من أن تلتمس الأمن وأنت ترزح تحت وطأة العبودية؛ ولأن تتجاوز مخاوفك التي تُحذرك من الخطر أكرم لك من أن تستسلم لحياتك البائسة عاجزًا! لكن المقولة – كغيرها (...) من كثرة من المقولات – لم تعد تحفيزية كما قد يُوحي محتواها، بل باتت بمثابة قاعدة سياسية وإدارية هدفها الأول والأخير إعادة صياغة العقد الاجتماعي المتعارف عليه لقرونٍ طويلة خلت: من ضمان الحرية والأمن وحل المشكلات الحياتية العالقة إلى الحكم والهيمنة والرقابة دون ضمانات، وهو ما تجلى بوضوح في التعاطي السياسي مع أزمة كورونا على امتداد العالم منذ اندلاعها في ديسمبر من العام الماضي؛ حيث تراوحت ردود الأفعال الحكومية من إنكار للوباء في البداية، إلى تبادل الاتهامات حول مصدره، إلى رفض تحمل المسؤولية إزاء الأعداد المتزايدة من الإصابات، إلى استغلال الأزمة اقتصاديًا باستبعاد كبار السن والمصابين بأمراض مزمنة من معادلة الوجود من جهة، وفرض المزيد من الضرائب والتبرعات الجبرية من جهة أخرى، ووصولاً إلى عدم الاكتراث الرواقي المتمثل في إنهاء حالة الإغلاق وترك الشعوب تواجه مصيرها المحتوم. (shrink)

لا تُخبرني عن الوقت في غرفة مليئة بالساعات! حسنًا، لكن ماذا لو كنت في هذه الغرفة وأنت عاجزٌ عن معرفة الوقت، أو كنت تعرفه لكنك لا تستطيع استثماره؟ تاريخٌ طويل لأخلاقيات البيولوجيا، وأخلاقيات الطب، وأخلاقيات المهنة، أصبح اليوم على المحك؛ آلاف المؤتمرات واللجان والمنشورات بدت وكأنها بلا نفع أو تأثير يُذكر اليوم! ففي خضم الأزمة الدولية الخانقة لفيروس كورونا أدرك كثيرون أن ثمة فرقًا هائلاً بين أن تقوم بالتنظير الأخلاقي وأن تلتمس تطبيقه؛ وأن لأخلاقيات الدول والحروب – أيًا كانت طبيعتها (...) – قواعد ومعايير يصعب مزجها بأخلاقيات الفرد من خلال الأمر: افعل ولا تفعل! الأمر شبيه بأن تأتي بمن يتضور جوعًا وتتلو عليه آداب الحصول على الطعام وتناوله! (shrink)

كان يمشي في الأرض مرحًا، مُصعرًا خده للطبيعة، ومُنتشيًا برفاهيات حضاراته؛ أو يخطو فوق أديمها مهمومًا بضنك العيش، يعتصره ألم البحث عن قوت يومه، قبل أن يُفاجئه الفيروس التاجي ليقلب حياته رأسًا على عقب. إنه الإنسان، ذلك المجهول لنفسه، الجاهل بعلمه، المغرور بعقله، الضعيف بقوته، المتناقض مع ذاته، الفقير بثرواته الضخمة! فجأة باتت تعتمل بداخله مشاعر الحيرة والخوف والقلق، تؤرقه تساؤلات تسخر من عجزه الصارخ عن الإجابة عنها: ما أصل هذا الفيروس؟ هل هو نبتٌ طبيعي أم مؤامرة من بني جلدته؟ (...) ما هو أفضل علاج لمكافحته؟ لماذا يحصد الأرواح غير مًبالٍ؟ وكيف يمكن لكائن متناه في الصغر، غير مرئي، أن يشن حربًا ضد البشر بكل هذه القوة في القرن الحادي والعشرين، ورغم كل ما تحقق من تقدمٍ علمي وطبي مذهل؟ يعجز العلم عن الإجابة، ويعجز الساسة عن التبرير، ويعجز الدعاة عن المواساة، ويعجز العائل عن حماية رعيته، وينكفئ المرء على نفسه باحثًا عن الإجابات في منطقةٍ فكرية مُهملة: الفلسفة! أجل، فتساؤلات الجائحة تُشبه كثيرًا تلك المنطقة الحدودية التي حدثنا عنها الفيلسوف الألماني «كارل ياسبرز»، والتي لا يمكن أن نتجاوزها بالطرقة العلمية والتجريبية، عندها يُواجه المرء خيارين لا ثالث لهما: إما أن يستسلم لأمواج اليأس العاتية، أو يتوضأ من أنهار الحكمة التي تناساها ردحًا طويلاً من الزمن! لا شك أن ثمة نظريات عديدة عن أصل الفيروس: بعضهم يعتقد أنه مُنتج بشري تم تخليقه في المختبرات لاستخدامه كسلاح بيولوجي يُعزز الهيمنة، لكنه فرَّ من مخترعيه فأصابهم، سواء عن غير قصد، أو مع سبق الإصرار والترصد؛ وبعضهم يعتقد أنه مجرد أداة تحصنت بها الطبيعة ضد عبث الإنسان وإفساده اللامنقطع في البر والبحر ... لكن الفيروس في كل الأحوال يتحدانا بقوة، ويكشف لنا بوحشية عن مدى هشاشتنا، سواء كنا أفرادًا أو جماعات، ويدفعنا إلى إعادة تقييم لحظتنا الوجودية: مَن نحن؟ وما مكاننا في الكون؟ وهل ثمة ما يمكن أن يُهدد بقاءنا كنوعٍ في أي وقت؟! لقد أظهر لنا الفيروس مدى أهمية الحياة، ومدى غباء انخراطنا الدائم في الصراع بدلاً من البحث عن سُبلٍ للتفاهم والتعاون! وعندما ينسحب الجميع في معازلهم، سواء أكانت مختبرات ومشافي تموج بأشرس معارك العلم ضد الفيروس، أو منازل تتضخم فيها مخاوف القدرة على اجتياز الجائحة، تتحول معازل الفلاسفة إلى خلايا فكرية تبسط أشرعة المعنى والمغزى والهدف على الجميع. هذا ما نحاول تبيانه في هذا المقال؛ من عزاء الفلسفة للحيارى والقانطين والموجوعين؛ إلى حالة الطبيعة الهوبزية البادية في الأفق وشروط تجاوزها؛ إلى المعضلات الأخلاقية المنبثقة في غيابات التيه الفيروسية الجديدة؛ إلى معنى الوجود والبقاء والهوية؛ إلى العدو المُكتشف والمُنتظَر في عالم كورونا وما بعده: اللامساواة، والعبث بالاستقرار المُناخي! (shrink)

على مدى سنواتٍ طويلة، شغلتني إشكالية العلاقة بين العلم والسياسة، قراءةً وبحثًا وإشرافًا على أطروحات تُعالج هذه العلاقة وتأثيراتها على الكوكب المُثقل بنا وبما كسبت أيدينا. قد تبدو هذه العلاقة للوهلة الأولى علاقة اعتماد متبادل؛ فالبحوث والكشوف العلمية في حاجةٍ إلى تمويل، والتمويل يأتي من قبل الحكومات، أو من قبل أرباب رؤوس الأموال الذين يُهيمنون على سياسات الدول والحكومات؛ كما أن الدول والحكومات في حاجة إلى البحوث والكشوف العلمية لتنفيذ برامجها التنموية والانتصار لأيديولوجياتها. يُمكننا تمثيل هذه العلاقة بين العلم والسياسة (...) بعلاقة الأعرج والأعمى؛ فالأول مُقيد في تنقلاته بكرسي مُتحرك، فهو في حاجةٍ إلى من يدفعه، والثاني فَقد بصره، فهو في حاجةٍ إلى من يُوجهه، ومن ثم فقد ارتبطا معًا بمصيرٍ واحد، وباتا يعتمدان على بعضهما البعض وإن اختلفت أهدافهما! لكن الأعمى في الحقيقة هو الذي يقود، وقد يصُم أذنيه عن نداءات الأعرج فيهوي به في الظلمات سبعين خريفًا! وهل يُمكن للسياسي حين تغلب عليه أيديولوجيته، وتطغى عليه طموحات التفوق والهيمنة، أن يُدرك تعقيدات القوة التي يمكن للعلم أن يُطلقها من عنانها؟ وهل بإمكانه أن يُوازن دومًا بين هذه القوة وما تتسم به النفس البشرية من ضعف وتناقضٍ وتحول وفقًا لشروط الزمان والمكان؟! تلك هي القضية الكبرى التي تواجه الإنسان منذ منتصف القرن الماضي، وبصفة خاصة منذ أن ألقيت أول قنبلة ذرية على هيروشيما؛ يومها أعلن الفيزيائي الأمريكي «جاكوب روبرت أوبنهايمر» أن العلم قد فقد عذريته، ولم يعد لنا أن نتخيله تلك العذراء الطاهرة الحنون! لكن عالــــم الكيمياء الحيوي النمســــوي «إروين شارجــــــاف» ذهب إلى أبعد من ذلك؛ رأى أن العلم قد فقد عذريته مع بدء مشروع مانهاتن، أول معسكر اعتقال علمي جُمع فيه أكثر العلماء عبقرية من كيميائيين وفيزيائيين تحت حراسة مشددة، وقيل لهم: هيا العبوا واقتلوا. كانوا يعرفون جميعـًا أنهم سيقومون بأكبر عملٍ شيطاني: تفجير الذرة، وأن هذا الاكتشاف سيسُتخدم في أكبر مذبحة في تاريخ البشرية! ومنذ ذلك الحين، بات جليًا أن الحياد العلمي أمرًا يوتوبيًا مُفارقًا للواقع، وأن القدرة على تطهير العقل العلمي من أدرانه الأيديولوجية مسألة عصية على العلماء في عالمٍ تنهشه السياسة وتبتلعه بطون السادة على موائد الأموال، وهو ما تعكسه بوضوح أزمة جائحة كورونا. (shrink)

كان من الطبيعي أن ينصب اهتمام العالم خلال الشهور الأخيرة على فيروس كورونا وكيفية تجاوز جائحته بأقل خسائر مُمكنة، فقد بلغ عدد قتلاه حتى اليوم (2 يونيو 2020) 380.265 شخص، وبات الاقتصاد في حالة فوضى يُرثى لها، وتقلصت حياة البشر وخُطتهم اليومية والمستقبلية بشكلٍ شبه كامل، وتعثرت الدراسة بالمدارس والجامعات، واضطرب الأداء الحكومي في أغلب بلدان العالم، ... إلخ. لكن تركيز الجميع على مشكلةٍ بعينها في عالمٍ يعج بالمشكلات من شأنه أن يُقوض كافة الجهود التي بُذلت أو تُبذل من أجل (...) مستقبلٍ أفضل، لاسيما إن كانت هذه المشكلات أشد إلحاحًا وأكثر خطورة. (shrink)

لا تأخذ الأمر على محملٍ شخصي؛ فحين يتعلق الأمر بالمرض والموت، يتلاشى الاهتمام بما إذا كنت صديقي أو قريبي أو جاري أو شخصًا غريبًا عني؛ لا تعنيني الآن هويتك أو علمك أو سياستك، ولا يشغلني أين أو ماذا تعمل، أو ما إذا كنت تعمل أصلاً، ولا يختلف الأمر عندي سواء أكنت ترتدي قناعًا أو تحمل مسدسًا أو تُمسك قلمًا! في الوقت الحالي، أنا لا أثق بك؛ فأنت بالنسبة لي حاملٌ محتملٌ لفيروس قاتل!

في علم الأوبئة، يمثل رقم التكاثر الأساسي عدد الحالات التي تُنتجها حالة واحدة مُصابة خلال فترة العدوى بين مجموعة غير مُصابة،. وبصفة عامة، إذا كان رقم التكاثر أقل من (1)، فإن فرصة العدوى ستتضاءل حتى يختفي المرض تمامًا، أما إن كان أكبر من (1)، فإن كل شخص مُصاب سوف ينقل العدوى إلى شخصٍ آخر على الأقل، مع الوضع في الاعتبار عدم تجانس المجتمعات من حيث نمط الحياة. وتتراوح التقديرات الحالية لعدد التكاثر الأساسي لفيروس كورونا المستجد (أو كوفيد-19) بين 2 و3، (...) ليقترب بهذا من عدد التكاثر الأساسي لفيروس «سارس»، الذي تراوح بين 2 و4 في سنة 2003. (shrink)

لا أحبذ عادةً نظرية المؤامرة في معالجة أية ظاهرة طارئة أو حدث مؤثر، لكن الحُجج التي تسوقها النظرية فيما يتعلق بجائحة كورونا جديرة بالقراءة المتأنية والتأمل والنقاش، أو على الأقل جديرة بالمعرفة، لاسيما وأن من يتبناها كتابٌ كبار مثل البريطانيين «ديفيد آيك»، و«فيرنون كولمان» (الأول له أكثر من عشرين كتابًا في نظريات التلاعب بالعقول، والثاني له أكثر من مائة كتاب في الصحة العامة والسياسة وحقوق الحيوان). مؤدي النظرية باختصار أن فيروس كورونا جزءٌ من خطة تحويها أجندة سياسية – اقتصادية دولية (...) خفية، وأنه مجرد حلقة من حلقات سابقة وتالية من الفيروسات المُخلَّقة معمليًا (ذات السلالات المُوجهة المختلفة) لتحقيق أهداف معينة عن طريق بث الرعب في نفوس الناس. فما هي هذه الأهداف؟ وما دلائلها؟ ولماذا تُبالغ الحكومات ووسائل الإعلام في بث الرُعب والفزع منذ اللحظة الأولى لظهور فيروس كورونا . (shrink)

تأملات فلسفية حول تفشي فيروس كورونا (كوفيد-19) وأبعاده الاجتماعية والسياسية والدينية والعلمية.

COVID-19 vaccination of children has begun in various high-income countries with regulatory approval and general public support, but largely without careful ethical consideration. This trend is expected to extend to other COVID-19 vaccines and lower ages as clinical trials progress. This paper provides an ethical analysis of COVID-19 vaccination of healthy children. Specifically, we argue that it is currently unclear whether routine COVID-19 vaccination of healthy children is ethically justified in most contexts, given the minimal direct benefit that COVID-19 vaccination (...) provides to children, the potential for rare risks to outweigh these benefits and undermine vaccine confidence, and substantial evidence that COVID-19 vaccination confers adequate protection to risk groups, such as older adults, without the need to vaccinate healthy children. We conclude that child COVID-19 vaccination in wealthy communities before adults in poor communities worldwide is ethically unacceptable and consider how policy deliberations might evolve in light of future developments. (shrink)

For Albert Camus, plague was both a fact of life and a powerful metaphor for the human condition. Camus engaged most explicitly and extensively with the subject of plague in his 1947 novel, The Plague (La peste), which chronicles an outbreak of what is presumably cholera in the French-Algerian city of Oran. I often thought of this novel—and what it might teach us—during the recent COVID-19 pandemic. In this article, I discuss seven important insights from The Plague about epidemics, public (...) health and morality. (shrink)

ABSTRACT The testimonies of celebrities affect the lives of their many followers who pay attention to what they say. This gives celebrities a high degree of epistemic power, which has come under scrutiny during the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper investigates the duties that arise from this power. We argue that celebrities have a negative duty of testimonial justice not to undermine trust in authoritative sources by spreading misinformation or directing attention to untrustworthy sources. Moreover, celebrities have a general imperfect duty (...) to try to correct for an unjust distribution of attention by redirecting it to those who deserve it. During a pandemic this may become a perfect one, due to the harm that could be prevented if people follow the advice of experts. Relatedly, we argue that celebrities have an imperfect duty to promote behavior that will reduce the spread of a pandemic. We outline three ways they might do so: they might take on the position of a role model, they may act as a salience magnet or they can direct people’s attention towards others who have taken on these roles. (shrink)

On 26 January 2021, while announcing that the country had reached the mark of 100,000 deaths within 28 days of COVID-19, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson said that he took “full responsibility for everything that the Government has done” as part of British efforts to tackle the pandemic. The force of this statement was undermined, however, by what followed: -/- What I can tell you is that we truly did everything we could, and continue to do everything that we can, (...) to minimise loss of life and to minimise suffering... -/- Taking these sentiments together, it was hard to avoid the conclusion that the government took responsibility only for doing everything right. Such an admission of responsibility, accommodating no admission of error or wrongdoing, is not really about responsibility at all. Indeed, the UK’s pandemic response has been marked from its earliest days by a shifting of focus from institutional responsibility to personal responsibility for individual UK residents. -/- This paper explores the relationship between these two sites of responsibility—the institutional and the personal—in the context of the sort of pandemic that is ongoing as we write. Section 2 offers some initial definitions and discussions of key terms. Section 3 outlines how these two ideas interact in principle during such emergencies. Section 4 turns to the ‘non-ideal’ implications for personal responsibility of failures of institutional responsibility. While our focus is on the specific context with which we are most familiar, the UK governmental approach, where appropriate we also include examples from other states. (shrink)

Control measures, such as “lockdowns”, have been widely used to suppress the COVID-19 pandemic. Under some conditions, they prevent illness and save lives. But they also exact an economic toll. How should we balance the impact of such policies on individual lives and livelihoods (and other dimensions of concern) to determine which is best? A widely used method of policy evaluation, benefit–cost analysis (BCA), answers these questions by converting all the effects of a policy into monetary equivalents and then summing (...) them up. A different method, social welfare analysis, proceeds by determining the effects of a policy on individual wellbeing and then applying an aggregation formula to them to evaluate the overall effects of a policy. In this chapter, we survey these methods and argue that social welfare analysis has important advantages. One crucial advantage is that it enables ethical considerations relating to the impact of policies on individual wellbeing and its distribution to be incorporated into policy assessments in a transparent way. We illustrate this with a simple numerical model for evaluating pandemic policies that vary in terms of the stringency of the controls that they impose on individual behaviour, showing how the evaluation depends on the ethical significance accorded to their impact on the wellbeing of different age and income groups. (shrink)

In response to the spread of COVID-19, governments across the world have, with very few exceptions, enacted sweeping restrictive lockdown policies that impede citizens’ freedom to move, work, and assemble. This paper critically responds to the central arguments for restrictive lockdown legislation. We build our critique on the following assumption: public policy that enjoys virtually unanimous support worldwide should be justified by uncontroversial moral principles. We argue that that the virtually unanimous support in favor of restrictive lockdowns is not adequately (...) justified by the arguments given in favor of them. Importantly, this is not to say that states ought not impose restrictive lockdown measures, but rather that the extent of the acceptance of these measures is not proportionate to the strength of the arguments for lockdowns. -/- We begin by exploring the case for restrictive lockdowns. We first argue that several of the principles that are used to justify the lockdowns yield unexpectedly revisionary implications for other political problems that many would be unwilling to accept. We then outline what we consider the strongest argument for a lockdown—namely, that its net welfare benefits are great enough to defeat the moral presumption against restricting citizens’ civil liberties to move, work, and assemble. However, we give a number of reasons for doubting that the lockdown’s net welfare benefits are, in fact, sufficiently high to defeat the presumption against it. (shrink)

The COVID-19 pandemic revealed numerous weaknesses in pandemic preparedness and response, including underfunding, inadequate surveillance, and inequitable distribution of countermeasures. To overcome these weaknesses for future pandemics, WHO released a zero draft of a pandemic treaty in February, 2023, and subsequently a revised bureau's text in May, 2023. COVID-19 made clear that pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response reflect choices and value judgements. These decisions are therefore not a purely scientific or technical exercise, but are fundamentally grounded in ethics. The latest (...) treaty draft reflects these ethical considerations by including a section entitled Guiding Principles and Approaches. Most of these principles are ethical—they establish core values that undergird the treaty. Unfortunately, the treaty draft's set of principles are numerous, overlapping, and show inadequate coherence and consistency. We propose two improvements to this section of the draft pandemic treaty. First, key guiding ethical principles should be clearer and more precise than they currently are. Second, the link between ethical principles and policy implementation should be clearly established and define boundaries on acceptable interpretation, ensuring that signatories abide by these principles. (shrink)

Introduction: There is currently no binding, internationally accepted and successful approach to ensure global equitable access to healthcare during a pandemic. The aim of this ethical analysis is to bring into the discussion a legally regulated vaccine allocation as a possible strategy for equitable global access to vaccines. We focus our analysis on COVAX (COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access) and an existing EU regulation that, after adjustment, could promote global vaccine allocation. -/- Methods: The main documents discussing the two strategies are (...) examined with a qualitative content analysis. The ethical values reasonableness, openness and transparency, inclusiveness, responsiveness and accountability serve as categories for our ethical analysis. -/- Results: We observed that the decision-making processes in a legal solution to expand access to vaccines would be more transparent than in COVAX initiative, would be more inclusive, especially of nation states, and the values responsiveness and accountability could be easily incorporated in the development of a new regulation. -/- Discussion: A legal strategy that offers incentives to the pharmaceutical industry in return for global distribution of vaccines according to the Fair Priority Model is an innovative way to achieve global and equitable access to vaccines. However, in the long term, achieving the Sustainable Development Goals will require from all nations to work in solidarity to find durable solutions for global vaccine research and development. Interim solutions, such as our proposed legal strategy for equitable access to vaccines, and efforts to find long-term solutions must be advanced in parallel. (shrink)

_La Peste_, originally published in 1947 by the Nobel Prize-winning writer Albert Camus, chronicles the progression of deadly bubonic plague as it spreads through the quarantined Algerian city of Oran. While most discussions of fictional examples within aesthetics are either historical or hypothetical, Camus offers an example of "pestilence fiction." Camus chose fiction to convey facts--about plagues in the past, his own bout with tuberculosis at age seventeen, living under quarantine away from home for several years, and forced separation from (...) his wife who remained in Algiers while he was abroad in Nazi-occupied France. His own lived experiences undergird an imaginative account of shared human realities with which we can identify: vulnerability to the disease, isolation, fear, and finally humanitarianism. _The Plague_ teaches us to neither covet nor expect what we so casually took for granted. This collection of original essays on philosophical themes in _The Plague_ is of special relevance during and in the aftermath of Covid-19 but also provides reflections that will be of lasting value to those interested in this classic work of literature. The novel explores questions of enduring importance. Do we collectively meet the threshold of ethical behavior posed by Camus who wrote, "What's true of all the evils in the world is true of plague as well. It helps men to rise above themselves"? Or does the absurd undermine the compassionate? Do "heroes" dutifully fight a plague with "common decency," or does human nature resign itself to the normalization of uncontrollable suffering and death? There are myriad ways to approach the novel and this volume encourages readers to ponder human dilemmas in fictional Oran informed by our current pandemic. Series editor forward by Richard Eldridge. List of Contributors includes Steven G. Kellman, Jane E. Schultz, Andrew Edgar, Kathleen Higgins, Edward B. Weiser, Cynthia A. Freeland, and Margaret E. Gray; see "Introduction" by Peg Brand Weiser below. (shrink)

The Introduction provides a historical and literary context for the examination of Albert Camus’s 1947 fictional novel, The Plague, to suggest its relevance to our own lived experiences of the 2021 Covid-19 pandemic that brought the routines and expectations of our normal, daily lives to an unprecedented halt. Details of Camus’s life and work inform our reading of the narrative that give rise to multiple interpretations as well as intriguing questions of scholarly inquiry: How realistic are the characters? Does solidarity (...) eventually triumph over isolation? Does the popular novel inspire social change or fail in its aspirations? Facing the absurdity of a similarly unwelcome and unpredictable disease, have we managed our fear of death more successfully than the citizens of Oran? An overview of authors’ contributions sets the stage for new and unique perspectives: an invitation for readers to reflect upon our communal experience of immense grief. (shrink)

Conservative assumptions in medical ethics risk immense harms during a pandemic. Public health institutions and public discourse alike have repeatedly privileged inaction over aggressive medical interventions to address the pandemic, perversely increasing population-wide risks while claiming to be guided by ‘caution’. This puzzling disconnect between rhetoric and reality is suggestive of an underlying philosophical confusion. In this paper, I argue that we have been misled by status quo bias—exaggerating the moral significance of the risks inherent in medical interventions, while systematically (...) neglecting the risks inherent in the status quo prospect of an out-of-control pandemic. By coming to appreciate the possibility and significance of status quo risk, we will be better prepared to respond appropriately when the next pandemic strikes. (shrink)

The global pandemic caused by the spread of a novel coronavirus in early 2020 did more than transform the first one-and-a-quarter academic year that fell within its duration. It also transformed higher learning in its research and pedagogy. Like many misfortunes, COVID-19 has brought opportunity for growth and change. No doubt, there are many success stories of philosophers rising to the challenges of our time. In this contribution, I relate my own pandemic story, not as one of success, but rather (...) as a humble attempt to grapple with the question of the post-pandemic philosophy curriculum. What is the place of philosophy in the twenty-first-century university? What might "philosophy" mean in a post-pandemic context... (shrink)

It is widely accepted that a liberal state has a general duty to protect its people from undue health risks. However, the unprecedented emergent measures against the COVID-19 pandemic taken by governments worldwide give rise to questions regarding the extent to which this duty may be used to justify suspending a vaccine rollout on marginal safety grounds. -/- In this chapter, I use the case of vaccination to argue that while a liberal state has a general duty to protect its (...) people’s health, there is a limit to the measures this duty can be used to justify. First, I argue that since every available option involves different risks and benefits, the incommensurability of the involved risks and benefits forbids the prioritisation of a particular vaccine. Second, I argue that given epistemic limitations and uncertainty, policies that favour certain vaccines are not only epistemically ill-founded but also morally unacceptable. I conclude that in a highly uncertain situation such as the unfolding pandemic, the duty a liberal state ought to uphold is to properly communicate the knowns and unknowns to the general public and help people decide which option to choose for themselves. I call this duty the duty to facilitate risk-taking. (shrink)

It is widely accepted that a liberal state has a general duty to protect its people from undue health risks. However, the unprecedented emergent measures against the COVID-19 pandemic taken by governments worldwide give rise to questions regarding the extent to which this duty may be used to justify suspending a vaccine rollout on marginal safety grounds. -/- In this chapter, I use the case of vaccination to argue that while a liberal state has a general duty to protect its (...) people’s health, there is a limit to the measures this duty can be used to justify. First, I argue that since every available option involves different risks and benefits, the incommensurability of the involved risks and benefits forbids the prioritisation of a particular vaccine. Second, I argue that given epistemic limitations and uncertainty, policies that favour certain vaccines are not only epistemically ill-founded but also morally unacceptable. I conclude that in a highly uncertain situation such as the unfolding pandemic, the duty a liberal state ought to uphold is to properly communicate the knowns and unknowns to the general public and help people decide which option to choose for themselves. I call this duty the duty to facilitate risk-taking. (shrink)

With the coronavirus pandemic and the Omicron variant once again forcing countries into lockdown, this essay seeks to outline a Foucauldian critique of various legal measures taken by the Danish government to cope with COVID-19 during the first year and a half of the pandemic. The essay takes a critical look at the extra-legal measures employed by the Danish government, as the Danish politicians attempted to halt the spread of the, now almost forgotten, Cluster 5 COVID-19 variant. This situation will (...) serve as a critical point from where to start using Foucault’s writings on life and biopolitics in order to expose various legally problematic governmental decisions that became visible during the handling of COVID-19 in general and the Cluster 5 mutation in particular. Reframing the pandemic within Foucault’s concept of biopolitics, this essay concludes that the state of exception has led to an increase in biopolitical logic, where some lives have come to matter more than others. As a critical counterpoint to this logic, the conclusion suggests that the notion of biocommunism could provide a suitable reconfiguration of communism. A reconfiguration that could mitigate some of the issues related to biopolitics is uncovered earlier in the essay. (shrink)

The potential for vaccines to prevent the spread of infectious diseases is crucial for vaccination policy and ethics. In this paper, I discuss recent evidence that the current COVID-19 vaccines have only a modest and short-lived effect on reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission and argue that this has at least four important ethical implications. First, getting vaccinated against COVID-19 should be seen primarily as a self-protective choice for individuals. Second, moral condemnation of unvaccinated people for causing direct harm to others is unjustified. (...) Third, the case for a harm-based moral obligation to get vaccinated against COVID-19 is weak. Finally, and perhaps most significantly, coercive COVID-19 vaccination policies (e.g., measures that exclude unvaccinated people from society) cannot be directly justified by the harm principle. (shrink)

Bioethics, Volume 36, Issue 6, Page 687-698, July 2022.