Publication date: Jul 13, 2025
This paper examines the ways in which public health measures taken to contain the spread of COVID-19 impacted the freedom of those affected, understanding freedom as non-domination. It argues that, in the absence of effective vaccines, individuals who carry a virus with the profile of COVID-19 have the capacity to impose high risks of severe illness and death on other people. But formal and informal rules can help control this capacity, supporting the freedom of people in certain respects. With regard to governmental enforcement of public health measures such as lockdowns, it argues that-depending on the form they take-they can be consistent with the enjoyment of freedom as non-domination of the population. Still, for this to be the case, some demanding conditions must be met. First, the government must continue to operate under a number of suitable checks. Second, the relevant policies must protect the basic interests of all members of the population. The paper also responds to criticisms of this account of freedom, stressing the connection between the secure enjoyment of basic liberties and the enforcement of formal and informal rules.

| Concepts | Keywords |
|---|---|
| Bioethics | basic liberties |
| Covid | COVID‐19 |
| Death | Oberman |
| Formal | Pettit |
| Vaccines | public health |
| republicanism |
Semantics
| Type | Source | Name |
|---|---|---|
| disease | MESH | COVID-19 |
| disease | MESH | death |
| drug | DRUGBANK | Methionine |