Group 8C Poster Presentation by Publishing | May 30, 2020 | COVID-19 Innovation Programme, Poster Presentations | 2 comments 2 Comments Keertana Anne on May 30, 2020 at 3:16 pm This is really amazing work Group 8C! I love your reasoning behind the new ideas you want to implement! You have really understood how to market the idea of preventing future peaks to the public via your use of acronyms (SAFETY). Comparing the UK government’s response to South Korea and the Spanish Flu was absolutely genius and shows that you are able to critically appraise these ideas and use them to implement and innovate your own! What ethical judgement would you need to apply to your proposed scenario of lifting the lockdown and preventing future peaks? What do you think the response from the general public would be like? Reply Eliza Hyde on May 31, 2020 at 10:11 am When considering lifting the lockdown, we need to consider the more vulnerable groups. We know, for example, that the elderly are at a higher risk of suffering from complications. Moreover, those with underlying health conditions such as diabetes are also at a higher risk. Ethically, we would need to consider the safety of the general population when lifting the lockdown so that we ensure we are acting with beneficence (a utilitarian objective may be taken to ensure that the majority of people benefit). During our group’s debate, we evaluated the pros and cons of sub-group specific restrictions being permitted. We understand that these may be needed to ensure the safety of those most at risk however, these benefits need to be weighed up with other ethical problems such as discrimination. While ensuring we are acting with beneficence (for example, by lifting the lockdown to curtail the effects it may be having on the general population), we’d need also to take steps to ensure we are also acting with non-maleficence so that we are not causing other groups harm (by potentially putting them at risk of contracting the virus). I think that if the lockdown was to be lifted, the general public would have a positive attitude as they may be beginning to feel negative effects on their mental health. However, those in high risk categories (the shielding group), may be fearful of the relaxed policy due to being put at an increased risk of transmission. Members of the public who have underlying health conditions (such as Cancer) may have had treatment put on hold and I think that these members of the public would be happy about a relaxed lockdown as this could potentially result in treatment plans recommencing. Reply Submit a Comment Cancel reply Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.