After the Pandemic: New Responsibilities

Abstract

Seasonal influenza kills many hundreds of thousands of people every year. We argue that the current pandemic has lessons we should learn concerning how we should respond to it. Our response to the COVID-19 not only provides us with tools for confronting influenza; it also changes our sense of what is possible. The recognition of how dramatic policy responses to COVID-19 were and how widespread their general acceptance has been allowed us to imagine new and more sweeping responses to influenza. In fact, we not only can grasp how we can reduce its toll; this new knowledge entails new responsibilities to do so. We outline a range of potential interventions to alter social norms and to change structures to reduce influenza transmission, and consider ethical objections to our proposals.

Motivations and deterrents of blood donation among blood donors during the COVID‐19 pandemic in Hong Kong

“…The decision of blood donation, thus, is no longer an individual will, but it has become a collective decision among the donors and their families. Collective responsibility for preventing the pandemic has been repeatedly stressed by the mass media, governments and public health communications 39–43 . Donating blood without knowing whether one is infected was perceived to be potentially harmful to others, both in a physical sense and social sense (i.e., collective responsibility).…”

“…Collective responsibility for preventing the pandemic has been repeatedly stressed by the mass media, governments and public health communications. 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 Donating blood without knowing whether one is infected was perceived to be potentially harmful to others, both in a physical sense and social sense (i.e., collective responsibility). Participants were concerned about feeling guilty if they passed on the infection through their donated blood.…”

Too Scared to Go Sick: Precarious Academic Work and ‘Presenteeism Culture’ in the UK Higher Education Sector During the Covid-19 Pandemic

“…Authors have recognised that it is common practice in academia for staff to work from home while sick. As reported, the use of technology allows academics to work remotely without being infectious and therefore remain productive and avoid attracting negative attention from colleagues and management (Jaye et al, 2020; Levy and Savulescu, 2021). This suggests the development of a particular presenteeism culture within HE organisations which is based on a culture of fear (Hadjisolomou, 2016; Taylor et al, 2010), further facilitated by technology.…”

“…Overall, it is clear from Steven’s story that academia is characterised by what Ruhle and Süß (2019: 248) describe as a voluntary ‘presentistic culture’, within which sickness presence is voluntary but, nevertheless, in this case, it is expected by management and facilitated by technology (Levy and Savulescu, 2021), leading to feelings of fear to go off sick (Hadjisolomou, 2016; Taylor et al, 2010). The underlying, unitarist, assumption of this type of presenteeism culture is that the individual is loyal to the organisation and is responsible for the organisational goals and success, although the ‘greedy’ HE institution does not provide job security, decent work or adequate health and safety protection (Bone et al, 2018).…”

Utilitarian Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic for Non-Pandemic Diseases

“…A utilitarian model of resource allocation for public health would instead prioritize such diseases, increasing the likelihood of finding a cure and providing a large benefit in terms of increase in wellbeing to a great number of people. Furthermore, COVID-19 has also raised the issue of changing societal norms in order to better fight the impacts of the pandemic (Levy and Savulescu 2021). This opens up avenues for enquiring whether we could encourage public health measures to fight nonpandemic disease, such as mask-wearing in enclosed public spaces during flu season.…”