An Epidemiological View of the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election: COVID-19 and the Ethics of Science Denial

Gellert, A. George
{"title":"An Epidemiological View of the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election: COVID-19 and the Ethics of Science Denial","authors":"Gellert, A. George","doi":"10.18785/ojhe.1603.03","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"COVID-19 is exploiting U.S. political and cultural polarization in the first presidential election to be driven by epidemiology and public health. Medical science is on the ballot as Americans’ views on economic re-opening fracture according to party affiliation. The difference between pro aggressive versus incremental re-opening, mask wearing and social distancing is rooted in respect for, or denial of, the science of epidemiological pandemic disease control. Political leaders at multiple levels, and in particular the president, have politicized the wearing of face masks and so intentionally obscured and misinformed the public regarding the objectively and scientifically proven value of these protective measures. The presidential election rests at a fundamental level upon an individual choice of whether to accept or “believe” value-neutral, evidence-based science or an unethical decision to be swayed by political disinformation. The persistent and highly dysfunctional political and cultural polarization of the U.S. is now enabling and reinforcing the ethics of science denial, while driving the nation’s public health fate and near- to medium-term economic outcomes. However, mask wearing, social distance and sheltering are not political expressions, and the right to freedom of expression does not include behaviors that produce or could produce serious, and in the case of this pandemic, deadly impact on other citizens. One does not have the right to forms of political or other expression that kill or make ill other individuals.","PeriodicalId":89828,"journal":{"name":"Online journal of health ethics","volume":" ","pages":"3"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Online journal of health ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18785/ojhe.1603.03","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

COVID-19 is exploiting U.S. political and cultural polarization in the first presidential election to be driven by epidemiology and public health. Medical science is on the ballot as Americans’ views on economic re-opening fracture according to party affiliation. The difference between pro aggressive versus incremental re-opening, mask wearing and social distancing is rooted in respect for, or denial of, the science of epidemiological pandemic disease control. Political leaders at multiple levels, and in particular the president, have politicized the wearing of face masks and so intentionally obscured and misinformed the public regarding the objectively and scientifically proven value of these protective measures. The presidential election rests at a fundamental level upon an individual choice of whether to accept or “believe” value-neutral, evidence-based science or an unethical decision to be swayed by political disinformation. The persistent and highly dysfunctional political and cultural polarization of the U.S. is now enabling and reinforcing the ethics of science denial, while driving the nation’s public health fate and near- to medium-term economic outcomes. However, mask wearing, social distance and sheltering are not political expressions, and the right to freedom of expression does not include behaviors that produce or could produce serious, and in the case of this pandemic, deadly impact on other citizens. One does not have the right to forms of political or other expression that kill or make ill other individuals.
2020年美国总统大选的流行病学观点:COVID-19和否认科学的伦理
在以流行病学和公共卫生为中心的首次总统选举中,新冠病毒正在利用美国政治和文化的两极分化。随着美国人对经济重新开放的看法因党派关系而分裂,医学科学也在投票中。积极主动与渐进式重新开放、戴口罩和保持社交距离之间的区别,根源在于对流行病学大流行疾病控制科学的尊重还是否认。各级政治领导人,特别是总统,将戴口罩政治化,故意掩盖和误导公众对这些保护措施的客观和科学证明的价值。总统选举在根本上取决于个人的选择,是接受还是“相信”价值中立的、以证据为基础的科学,还是被政治虚假信息所左右的不道德决定。美国持续存在的、高度失调的政治和文化两极分化,正在催生和强化否认科学的伦理,同时影响着美国的公共卫生命运和中短期经济结果。然而,戴口罩、保持社交距离和躲避都不是政治表达,言论自由权不包括对其他公民产生或可能产生严重影响的行为,就本次大流行而言,这种影响是致命的。一个人没有权利采取杀害或伤害他人的政治或其他表达形式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书