COVID-19 in Social and Cultural Contexts

The significance of comprehending COVID-19 in various social and cultural contexts. 

Of course, a scientific explanation of the epidemic is essential for the population to justify government reactions to the pandemic. In addition, we discussed some of the existing flaws in the scientific analysis of COVID-19 in the previous section. However, in addition to the kind of facts and data that the natural sciences can offer, politicians must also provide evidence about the pandemic's social and cultural aspects. 

These factors include both the social and cultural climate in which the virus persists and grows, as well as the possible social and cultural consequences of virus-containment strategies—it would be impractical to extend the same policies to all populations, nations, and contexts. 

Without a wider perception, such policies can be inefficient as well as incompatible with the demands of justifiable civility. 

The critical need for more experimental studies on COVID-19 in daily environments in the previous section, in order to better understand how the virus spreads in different spaces and via different surfaces and materials. 

Studies done in the field, away from real-world environments, are not always able to have this kind of evidence. But, in addition to gaining a greater understanding of the physical aspects of daily settings, it is also important to investigate their social and cultural dimensions, such as how individuals communicate in various situations and spaces. 

Knowing what materials chairs and tables are made of, or how cooling functions in these settings, is not enough to consider how COVID-19 spreads in restaurants and cafes, for example. 

It's also important to know what sorts of experiences people have, such as whether they eat with others or alone, whether they swap plates or not, whether they sit or stand to drink coffee, and how much and for how long they visit these places. 

These questions, on the other hand, cannot be answered in a vacuum. Instead, it is important to gain awareness and understanding of various food and coffee cultures. Knowing that people in one country choose to eat in big crowds at restaurants for long stretches of time, while people in another prefer to eat fast meals on their own, for example, may have consequences for how COVID-19 strategies are planned, since such differing social and cultural patterns are likely to affect the virus's distribution in different ways. 

Beyond the natural science study of the virus, acquiring this knowledge necessitates interdisciplinary studies. 

It also requires politicians to rely on the experience of social scientists (e.g., sociologists, anthropologists, psychologists, and political scientists) who research the virus in relation to people's behaviors and values. 

It's critical to draw on this knowledge to better understand not just how the virus spreads in various situations, but also how to adapt. Knowing a country's religious makeup, for example, is critical because religious practitioners in certain countries have occasionally protested or refused to completely comply with lockout laws targeting places of worship. 

Knowing whether a country's political culture values individual liberty or unity will be important in determining how its politicians will better defend policy responses to COVID-19, as well as the degree to which they can restrict individual rights and liberties in ways that the majority of people will deem socially justifiable. 

For example, Prime Minister Boris Johnson recently stated that one of the reasons why the UK's efforts to suppress the virus have been unsuccessful is the people' love for individual liberty. Johnson said in a parliamentary address, "Really, there is a significant gap between our country and many other countries around the world... That is, our country is a libertarian country. 

If you look at the country's past over the last few years, you'll see that almost every advancement – from free expression to independence – has come from here. And it is extremely difficult to expect the entire British population to follow guidelines in the manner that is required. 

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, on the other hand, has always highlighted the importance of German society's unity, an idea she emphasized in a speech to the country at the outbreak of the pandemic in March: There hasn't been a problem for our country since German reunification, no, since the Second World War, in which engagement in a spirit of unity on our part was so important. 

Anything I've said so far is based on ongoing discussions between the federal government and experts from the Robert Koch Institute and other scientists and virologists. This isn't just about numbers in a spreadsheet; it's about a father or grandfather, a mother or grandmother, a girlfriend – it's about individuals. And we are a society where every life and person matters. 

Recognizing these types of cultural distinctions will help politicians have more public justifications for their policies, i.e. justifications that are more in line with certain principles. After all, one of political liberalism's central assumptions is that policy reasons must be based on ideas that are implicit in a society's public political culture. 

Those proposals, or how they are prioritized in relation to one another, may vary across cultures, including liberal democracies. If politicians are unable to offer a public argument that is consistent with common ideas and values in their society's public political culture, new policies that are more consistent with those ideas and values may be required. 

Other social and cultural influences affect how we interpret and combat COVID-19, in addition to moral and political worldviews. 

Shaming, for example, may be an effective psychological tool for limiting social order problems during the pandemic. Many Australians, for example, began hoarding and fighting over toilet paper at the outbreak of the public health crisis. 

That conduct, as well as non-compliance with anti-COVID-19 policies in general, was described by Prime Minister Scott Morrison as "un-Australian." The significance of additional cultural influences is further shown by mask-wearing standards. The likelihood of people wearing masks to prevent the spread of COVID-19 is highly dependent on local cultural norms. 

In certain parts of Asia, for example, everybody wears a mask by custom because it is considered safer and more considerate. In mainland China, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Thailand, and Taiwan, it is widely assumed that everyone, even healthy citizens, may be a carrier of the virus. 

As a result, in the sense of unity, you must defend others against yourself... And before the coronavirus epidemic, mask-wearing was a cultural practice in many of these nations. 

They've also been trend statements – Hello Kitty face masks were once all the rage in Hong Kong's street markets. Similarly, communities that value friendly kissing and hugs might be more favorable to the virus's dissemination. Furthermore, a society's ability to react to a danger such as the present pandemic is influenced by past natural disaster experiences. 

According to one report, environmental and human-made challenges intensify the need for strict standards and deviant behavior deterrence in the service of collective coordination for survival—whether it's to mitigate instability in high-population countries, cope with resource shortages, mobilize in the face of natural disasters, protect against territorial threats, or contain disease transmission. 

To effectively cope with such risks, nations meeting these specific problems are expected to cultivate strict standards and have a low threshold for deviant conduct [tight cultures]. 

Nations with little environmental and human-made risks, on the other hand, provide a much lower demand for order and social coordination, allowing for more latitude [loose cultures] and weaker social standards. 

Knowing whether a society's culture is "strong" or "loose" will help researchers better understand people's reactions to COVID-19, the degree to which social expectations can control behavior, and how well policy solutions to the pandemic are implemented. To summarize, justifying civility requires experience and comprehension of the social world in which COVID-19 operates and spreads. 

To restate our main argument in this section, such information is critical for two reasons. For starters, it will assist politicians in better understanding the epidemic and improving the effectiveness of the measures put in place to combat it. This will improve the public case for such policies' epistemic dimension. 

Second, a greater understanding of a country's political culture will aid politicians in better aligning the normative component of their public justifications for policies with the theories, beliefs, and standards that are widely held in that society.

You may also want to read more analysis about the COVID-19 Pandemic here.

COVID-19 Medical and Science Policy Disconnect and Subversion

The challenges to societal argument faced by limitations or shortcomings in our scientific interpretation of COVID-19. 

This may be due to flaws in the virus's natural or social science analysis, or a combination of both. In, we look at a particular collection of issues that are often impediments to justifiable civility. The first is concerned with a lack of direct contact between politicians and the research community (even though solid scientific data is available); the second is concerned with issues relating to science politicization, subversion, and corruption. 

The first issue has been labelled a flaw of the so-called "science-policy interface." 

The science-policy interface is a shorthand summary of the mechanism by which the best scientific expertise and guidance is given by the most competent agencies and specialists, acted on by key decision-makers in government, and made available to the general public. 

Many of the failures were caused by government weakness, but there were also failures by research organizations and advisors who understood the threat but were unable to rally support for prompt and successful intervention. 

Other considerations, we believe, can obstruct the smooth transfer of scientific results from the latter to the former, in addition to policymakers' incompetence and scientific community failures. 

The manner in which scientists express their results to politicians, in particular, may have a significant impact on how they are viewed. Take, for example, the case of Fauci, which was previously addressed. Fauci's realistic style, which is marked by an apolitical, non-ideological, and goal-oriented attitude, is likely to have led to his willingness to affect US Presidents and other important political leaders for many decades.

 Furthermore, the politeness with which scientific findings are shared may also affect the uptake of scientific findings by politicians (and people in general). 

That is, respectful interactions will aid absorption, demonstrating the importance of politeness as a "social lubricant" as discussed in the previous post. When sharing scientific information during a pandemic, when pressures between people and politicians are always high, exhibiting caution and adhering to politeness standards will help promote the uptake of the evidence by those in charge of policy-making, resulting in measures that are more in line with public rationale. 

This further shows an intriguing synergy between civility in the sense of politeness and justifiable civility. 

The unwillingness of scientific data to lead to the collective rationale of policies during COVID-19 may be due to policymakers' politicization, subversion, and misuse of research, in addition to the breakdown of the science-policy interface. 

These phenomena can manifest in a variety of ways. Politicians may make false scientific claims, such as when Trump claimed that "[t]aking hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 is safe and reliable," a claim he maintained even though the scientific community questioned him. Trump's argument was based on a statistically inaccurate French analysis. 

This example also highlights another issue: policymakers can mistakenly believe that their views on what is clinically feasible and useful in addressing the health crisis are on line with evidence-based policies. Following Trump's assertion, Fauci replied, "[t]he response is no" when asked whether the drug hydroxychloroquine is successful in preventing coronavirus. President Trump then returned to the podium to respond, saying, "It might work, it might not work." It makes me happy. That's all there is to it; it's just a thought, right, smart guy?' '[y]ou know the word, "[w]hat the hell do you have to lose?"' he said. 'I've been right a lot, let's see what happens,' he reasoned. 

This argument demonstrates that Trump used a faulty approach in promoting the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19, namely, appealing to his emotions rather than conclusions focused on sound science methods. 

Drawing on emotions about faulty research will intensify justificatory incivility because public justification and justificatory civility require claims to knowledge based on sound science in favour of legislation. In other contexts, policymakers can use scientific evidence selectively, citing research that is sound but incomplete. 

When Trump quoted low rates of contagion and mortality among children in July to defend his support for reopening schools, he ignored crucial facts about community spread, especially among the elderly, who are much more susceptible to the virus. 

We've often seen lawmakers misrepresent or misapply sound science findings throughout some cases. 

When Trump learned that COVID-19 kills quicker in the presence of sunlight and humidity, and that bleach or isopropyl alcohol would destroy it in minutes, he speculated that the virus might be cured by exposing patients to UV light or injecting disinfectant into their bodies. 

Scientists, on the other hand, immediately rejected his ideas. Although Trump's assertions were based on solid science facts in theory, he made a severe epistemic mistake by assuming that the efficacy of sunlight and disinfectants at destroying COVID-19 outside the human body mean that these "treatments" would be successful inside the human body as well, and by ignoring the serious damage that these "treatments" could cause the body in the process. 

Aside from the faulty or selective application of factual data, another impediment to science's commitment to justificatory civility is its politicization. 

When science's results are strategically troublesome, policymakers often make blatant attempts to discredit it. Under pressure from different business sectors, Trump declined to follow the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDCP) -page draught guideline for reopening the US, stating that he prefers pre-COVID-19 opening regulations to the CDCP's more conservative guidelines. Beyond the decisions of individual politicians, the politicization of science will have a broader impact on society. Individuals' perceptions and responses to experimental findings about COVID-19 may be influenced and distorted by partisan divisions. 

For example, in the United States, people's attitudes about factual findings about COVID-19 have been highly divided along political lines, with strong gaps in opinions about simple information about the pandemic. Most individuals, according to some commentators, are trapped in "alternative worlds." 

There is also proof that Republican supporters in the United States are more critical of scientific evidence relating to COVID-19 than Democrat supporters. Science's politicization may have far-reaching consequences. 

For example, collective bodies that otherwise refrain from endorsing particular politicians may see the scientific affront as a reason to take political positions. For example, in, the popular science journal Scientific American openly supported a presidential nominee for the first time in its -year history, claiming that ‘Donald Trump has seriously harmed the United States and its people—because he denies facts and science.' 

This kind of reaction could widen the chasm between certain policymakers and the science community, weakening the latter's acceptance of scientific facts. Finally, the presence and dissemination of conspiracy theories, such as the belief that "the COVID-19 pandemic is part of a scheme devised by global insiders — such as Bill Gates — to carry out vaccinations with monitoring chips that will later be triggered by G, the technologies used by cellular networks," will threaten science's commitment to justifiable civility. 

What should be said to fix these issues? 

We will need to use ethical mechanisms in addition to teaching people about scientific evidence knowledge and appraisal. We've already seen how these mechanisms can aid politicians in navigating challenging ethical dilemmas, particularly when balancing competing political ideals, rights, and liberties. They can, however, provide guidance on how to perform and communicate clinical experiments during a pandemic.

You may also want to read more analysis about the COVID-19 Pandemic here.

COVID-19 Pandemic's Gendered Effects

COVID-19's societal influence also reveals a strong gender component, with various gender classes facing different challenges. 

Men are more likely than women to die from the virus for unknown reasons. Men, in addition to their death rates, have been particularly vulnerable to emotional illness since the pandemic. This is especially true for fathers who have small children and are unemployed. Girls, on the other hand, have been disproportionately harmed by the pandemic. 

COVID-19 has exacerbated existing gender-based economic inequality in several respects, in addition to the higher maternal mortality rates in developed countries listed in the report. 

The sharp increase in domestic and family abuse is perhaps one of the most important consequences of the pandemic on women. People have been forced to remain in cramped spaces for long periods of time as a result of lockdown and stay-at-home directives, triggering or exacerbating tensions related to health and financial concerns. Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, Executive Director of UN Women, noted that [c]onfinement is cultivating the stress and pressure caused by defense, health, and money concerns in a statement highlighting the emergence of a "shadow pandemic." 

It's also isolating women with abusive relationships, isolating them from the individuals and services that can better assist them. Behind closed doors, it's a perfect storm for manipulating, abusive conduct. 

Domestic abuse services are now nearing capacity when health facilities are stretched beyond breaking point, a care gap exacerbated as centers are repurposed for additional COVID-19 intervention.

COVID-19 has a gendered bearing on topics relating to care roles. According to an Australian government survey, while men are often faced with increased care and household duties, women have been disproportionately impacted by these demands. Women, in particular, are more likely to devote more time to care duties. 

They make up the bulk of the healthcare staff, and they're most likely to look after ill family members at home and carry on educational duties while their children are off school... Increased care roles will add to women's stress levels and limit their economic opportunities. Furthermore, according to a survey of female academics at Australian universities, many women have failed to balance remote employment and caring responsibilities, and their institutions have provided little assistance. 

The challenges in maintaining this equilibrium, according to one female academic at an Australian university, are as follows: 

When you're in the middle of a rolling lockout with a baby, it's even more difficult. I've had to hammer out childcare and work plans in my own household, which had formerly been completely unaffected by my career... I haven't had any uninterrupted reflective time since March. Despite this, I've struggled mightily to retain a semblance of usual study and writing, only to keep my research trajectory from being unduly broken by the dual aspects of care and COVID-19. More broadly, a shortage of social funding for women has resulted in less remunerated working hours and higher levels of tension, as women continue to perform the majority of unpaid ‘care economy' work activities including cooking and childcare. 

Finally, COVID-19 has had a major influence on the LGBTIQ+ culture. 

It has exacerbated pre-existing inequalities among members of this group in terms of wellbeing, rates of depression and suicide, and encounters with inequality when seeking healthcare and social services, as well as when interacting with law enforcement in Australia, for example. 

To mitigate the pandemic's detrimental consequences, a set of main guiding principles must be followed. Complying with human rights law, taking into account the unique needs and conditions of LGBTIQ+ people, ensuring that economic stimulus interventions benefit LGBTIQ+ people and organizations, and providing systemic frameworks to ensure that LGBTIQ+ people have a political voice and are involved in dialogue processes are only a few examples. 

All disadvantaged or particularly vulnerable people should be treated with the same care. Policymakers should consider the social and political realities that define their society, as well as how their new COVID-19 proposals would engage with certain circumstances and achieve specific outcomes. 

Where objective data shows that a program imposes (or is likely to impose) undue pressures on certain people and classes, lawmakers will have to choose between renouncing the policy, changing it, or introducing additional steps aimed at minimizing its uneven consequences in order to meet the demands of justificatory civility. 

Finally, the main argument is that justifying civility necessitates not only logical logic but also consideration of the particular contexts under which (and for which) constitutional laws are devised and implemented.

You may also want to read more analysis about the COVID-19 Pandemic here.

Minorities, Race, Ethnicity and COVID-19

The pandemic has brought to light some of the profound racial social differences that exist in many communities. Because of gaps in access to health care, housing styles, degrees of economic precarity, and job types, COVID-19 has had a greater impact on some communities than others. 

The consequences and ramifications of systemic racial disparity for policy responses to the pandemic are the subject of this section. COVID-19 initiatives have had different economic consequences on different groups of the population. Although many people have faced greater financial instability, racial and ethnic minority groups will continue to be disproportionately affected by current unemployment rates and the resulting "global fallout." 

Financial safety-net services in countries like the United States would be particularly important in reducing racial disparities. 

Measures introduced in the interests of public health have resulted in a significant economic crisis, which has disproportionately impacted black people, who have higher unemployment rates than the general population. Many industries with a high percentage of black employees have been designated as "key," leaving those that are already employed more susceptible to infection. Policies that do not take into account the pandemic's disproportionate impacts on minorities and vulnerable communities are imposing further unjustified pressures on such groups. 

In the United States, measures to mitigate these burdens may include recognizing and targeting sectors with higher proportions of workers from precarious workforces (for example, nonprofit and public-sector jobs, which have higher proportions of minority employees), and modifying policy to provide targeted assistance and reduce burdens. 

Indigenous peoples are increasingly vulnerable to COVID-19 laws, and they face a particularly dire situation across the world. 

In certain South American countries, for example, measures aimed at easing the pandemic's economic impact on the general population will not be sufficient to offer relief to those in low-skilled and precarious employment. Any indigenous peoples in Brazil, Colombia, and Peru have been ignored and are in desperate straits as a result of policies. Even as economic assistance is delivered to some of the most needy populations, inadequate delivery methods such as cash transfers at remote regional banks have resulted in long queues and increased viral dissemination threats in the Peruvian Amazon.

Governments should fix these flaws in their programs if they wish to avoid engagement pressures that might jeopardize their public legitimacy. COVID-19 and race have both had strong political ramifications. 

In the United States, public health policies posed additional barriers to voter registration in the November presidential election, which are expected to lead to racial disenfranchisement patterns in the future. Access to polling places for in-person elections, long wait times that may discourage turnout for a variety of causes, and biases in mail-in ballot rejection rates may both lead to the continuing and unequal marginalization of voters based on race and ethnicity. 

Voting is often made simpler by English language skills, experience with voting processes, flexible work hours, and efficient transportation, enabling certain voters to exercise their political rights more effectively. 

A Human Rights Watch study on Abd'ullah, a Philadelphia elector, during the June primaries demonstrates the emergence of new barriers to voting during the pandemic, especially in minority communities. 

When he arrived at his usual polling place, it was locked. There was no sign of an alternative platform, and he was forced to travel around searching for one due to technological problems with the elections website. He soon reached a school and sat about an hour in line to cast a provisional vote. ‘Someone else may have been discouraged,' he reflected. I was completely disillusioned and on the verge of giving up. However, since I had a car, I was able to be more mobile. It would not have been possible if I had taken public transit. I must have surrendered.' 

He claims that since certain members of ethnic communities are mostly socially vulnerable, they will not often be able to get through the limits enforced during the pandemic to exercise their human rights and liberties. 

If policymakers wish to enact publicly justifiable policies, they should be mindful of the unjust pressures that such interventions place on these people. COVID-19 has also made it more difficult for certain people to exercise their right to free expression. 

Citizens' freedom to completely exercise the right can be limited by public health policies such as stringent lockdowns, stay-at-home directives, and bans on public meetings. When it came to organizing marches in reaction to many cases of deadly police brutality, the interventions became particularly difficult for blacks in the United States. Some questioned whether there was a trade-off between protesting bigotry and public health threats. 

The challenge of keeping physical distance in big crowds or adhering to mandatory mask laws, yelling and chanting, and some of the more violent police reactions, such as pepper spray, which causes gasping and coughing, will all increase the risk of catching the infection. 

However, for all those dedicated to mobilizing for transparency in the face of racial inequality, abstaining from demonstrations around such a critical topic will be a considerable burden, particularly for representatives of disadvantaged communities that are most affected. 

Over, health workers signed an open letter claiming the anti-racism marches were potentially beneficial to public health. The letter argued that "[w]hite dominance is a deadly public health problem that predates and leads to COVID-19," and that "[p]rotests against institutional injustice, which fosters the unjust pressure of COVID-19 on Black populations while still perpetuating police brutality, must be sponsored." 

Many social differences linked to race have been exposed as a result of the pandemic. Protests against police brutality against African-Americans became a platform for linking individual racial acts to systemic injustice in other areas, such as healthcare.

 At the start of the pandemic, blacks had dramatically higher infection and death rates, particularly among those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Many have come to see being black in the United States as its own kind of health danger as a result of these structural factors. ‘[t]hey were born in rural neighborhoods,' said one black activist in Washington, DC, of people he met who died as a result of COVID-19. 

I was unable to get adequate care. Since they lived in such close quarters, it was difficult to maintain social distance. And they were nevertheless compelled to go to work and put themselves in danger'.

Finally, evidence indicates that massive Black Lives Matter demonstrations could not have had an effect on overall virus transmission rates. 

Any laws governing anti-racial profiling and anti-police brutality marches should take into account the possible threats and implications of public health. However, lawmakers must consider the impact that restrictions on marches would have on the willingness of ethnic minorities to address social inequality.

You may also want to read more analysis about the COVID-19 Pandemic here.

Policy Compliance and Commitment Strains During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Justifiable civility was concerned not only with the justifications offered in support of democratic laws and regulations, but also with their possible consequences. Public explanation liberalism is not consequentialist; it bases the validity of political laws on their justifications and motives rather than their consequences. 

The probable or foreseeable consequences of a scheme, on the other hand, are also important to public justification. 

A policy that imposes undue "strains of loyalty" on individual people is not publicly justifiable; those that would be overburdened by the policy cannot be persuaded to support the policy and its rationale. 

While laws should be unbiased in terms of their rationale, not necessarily in terms of their implications, as Jonathan Quong points out, it's necessary to be explicit about what justificatory impartiality entails. Justificatory impartiality requires, but does not need, nondiscriminatory purpose. 

Many laws may follow the criterion of being non-discriminatory in nature, but they are plainly unjustifiable due to the disproportionate burdens they place on some people. 

Justificatory neutrality necessitates not only the avoidance of arbitrary intent, but also the consideration of the effect of a program on all persons involved. 

If we don't understand how a policy's costs and benefits can be allocated, we won't be able to think objectively. In addition to the state of non-discriminatory intent, impartial reasoning necessitates a condition similar to Rawls' "strains of loyalty." 

If I accept a program whose costs and benefits are allocated in such a manner that I wouldn't agree to put myself in the shoes of someone who would suffer the most as a result of the policy, I am not reasoning impartially. In this part, we look at the issue of "strains of commitment" in relation to COVID-19. 

We pay special attention to the fact that every society has social inequality, which can lead to some groups being disproportionately burdened by policies that tend to be public-spirited on the surface. 

This is an issue for many of the policies adopted by liberal democratic governments in reaction to COVID-19.

They seem to be public-spirited at first sight, in the sense that they want to save lives, advance the greater good of public health (which, as we've learned, helps preserve human rights and freedoms in the long run), and promote economic prosperity. 

However, it is undeniable that, no matter how well-intentioned in theory, such measures have had uneven impacts on various groups of people and placed undue pressures on others but not others in some ways. In this segment, we concentrate on the unjust pressures that such policies have put on people of different races, genders, and ages. 

Beyond the immediate consequences of COVID-19, one of the key implications of our study is that justifying civility necessitates lawmakers' awareness of the social and political circumstances that define their culture, as well as how the strategies they plan to enact can interfere with certain factors and yield those results. 

There is no such thing as a policy that has no consequences. When states pass legislation, such as on taxation, it is unavoidable that some people would be negatively affected rather than others. 

Similarly, it is undeniable that certain governments' implementation of lockout and stay-at-home directives during COVID-19 harmed some people and companies rather than others. This consequences are inextricably linked to the collective legitimacy of policies that place undue pressures on certain individuals and communities. 

As a result, such policies' probable or foreseeable effects and societal effect should be factored into their public rationale. This is also significant because such policies can intensify socioeconomic disparities, making them excessively burdensome for certain people.

You may also want to read more analysis about the COVID-19 Pandemic here.

COVID-19 - Pandemic Politics - Public Health versus Individual Rights and Freedoms

Public Health COVID-19 has often emphasized the need to balance the common good of public health with individual rights and freedoms, in addition to differing views about what the common good should entail. One might argue that this trade-off is only obvious because Rawls famously prioritizes basic rights and freedoms over the advancement of the common good. 

‘The ideals of justice are to be ranked in lexical order, and hence the fundamental liberties can only be limited for the sake of liberty [rather than to advance the common good]'. 

This objection, however, ignores another crucial element of Rawls' theory. People can only enjoy their human rights and freedoms, he believes, if they also have access to a social minimum package of products that protects them from things like poverty and disease. 

This means that, under political liberalism, promoting the common good of public health is not in conflict with individual rights and liberties, but rather, at least in theory, beneficial to them. 

However, it is implausible to say that any (temporary) infringements on human rights and freedoms are acceptable if they contribute to the long-term protection of those rights and freedoms. If that were the case, any form of authoritarian policy might be justified in the name of public health. 

Instead, justificatory civility requires politicians to strike a fair balance of political principles by carefully balancing the promotion of public health in the long run to help people enjoy their basic rights and liberties against the short-term limits of those same rights and liberties that public health policies often entail. 

Consider, for example, the religious believers' aversion to the wearing of masks. Some opponents can justify their opposition by citing contentious religious arguments, as in the case of Ohio state representative Nino Vitale. In other cases, such as plaintiff argues in the recent Florida court case Tillis v. Manatee County, opposition to mask-wearing laws has been justified by citing the right to religious freedom. 

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right to free exercise of religion, and it is unquestionably one of the shared political ideals essential to political liberalism and public reason theories. 

The use of this right differs from the use of claims based on a single religious religion. However, religious freedom arguments cannot be used to challenge any piece of legislation that even slightly infringes on that right. 

When determining the constitutionality of a statute in the United States, courts typically use either a "fair basis test" or a "strict scrutiny test," particularly when the latter includes an alleged violation of citizens' fundamental rights. 

The former requires that ‘[a] law or ordinance must have a legitimate state interest, and there must be a reasonable link between the statute's/means ordinance's and objectives' in order to be constitutional. The latter is more demanding, stating that "[t]o pass strict scrutiny, the legislature must have passed the law to further a "compelling governmental interest," and that "the law must have been specifically tailored to achieve that interest." 

Both tests are likely to find mask mandates constitutional, since ‘[such] mandates do advance a legitimate state interest – the security of public health – and do it in a way that minimizes the infringement on the constitutional right involved, whether it is freedom of expression or religion.' These tests will therefore assist courts in striking a fair balance between various common democratic ideals that are fundamental to the popular culture of a western democracy like the United States in the form of COVID-19. 

More broadly, these tests can provide policymakers with normative guidance for prioritizing one political value (for example, public health) while addressing others (for example, religious freedom) that may be temporarily harmed as a result. This will aid in the formulation and implementation of policies that adhere to justifiable civility principles. 

Individual liberties such as freedom of movement and freedom of expression have been invoked in response to government policies such as lockout and stay-at-home orders. 

We saw a large number of demonstrations around the world a few months into the global pandemic, with some highlighting the ‘alleged erosion of rights “that's been ramped up in unprecedented ways during this COVID-19 crisis”'. 

Protests in some cases were even more serious and aggressive. Political leaders may bear responsibility for these extreme cases, such as when Trump posted messages on Twitter encouraging people to ‘LIBERATE' states like Minnesota, Michigan, and Virginia. 

The so-called "sovereign people" movement, which has its roots in the United States but now has a global footprint, has also led protests against lockout and stay-at-home orders. Members of the movement have expressly criticized how government orders during the pandemic infringed on their freedom. Some of them have also assaulted or baited police officers in order to vent their anger. In two ways, these demonstrations are important to civility. 

On the one hand, they can serve as a useful reminder for governments to take human rights (such as the right to free movement and expression) into account when adopting public-health policies, allowing those policies to be justified on the basis of a fair balancing of democratic values. 

The protestors' demand for more justifiable civility, on the other hand, is often followed by both incivility as impoliteness and moral incivility. 

When demonstrators use rude language or actions to articulate their opinions and demonstrate their indignation, the former expresses itself. During anti-lockdown demonstrations in Michigan's state capital, for example, protestors chanted "Lock her up!" at Governor Gretchen Whitmerand and deliberately disrupted traffic with the symbolic "Operation gridlock" because she was "driving them out of business." 

When they injure other members of the public or attack police officers, the latter can be seen. We don't have enough room to discuss whether and when these types of "incivility as opposition" aimed at fostering justificatory civility are acceptable. 

However, some factors to consider include the type of incivility used by protesters 

(for example, impoliteness seems to be much less serious than moral incivility); the opportunities for protesters to communicate their message in more civil ways; and, finally, the extent to which governments fail to address individual rights and liberties while justifying their policies. 

Another example of the need to reconcile various political principles is the conflict between the common interest of public health and economic liberties, as shown by the participation of bar owners in the so-called "Bar Lives Matter" demonstrations. The trade-off seems to be easier to overcome in this case. 

First, although economic freedoms (e.g., bar owners' freedom to keep their bars open) are significant in a liberal democracy, they are arguably less important than fundamental rights and liberty such as freedom of expression and religion from a political liberalism perspective. 

Second, the possible damage to public health caused by drinking in bars is much greater than that caused by other unhealthy practices in the sense of COVID-19. During a hearing before a US Senate committee in late June, Anthony Fauci, director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said, "[b]ars: really not healthy." It's not looking fine... Within a pub, a swarm of people is bad news. We have to put a stop to it right now.' 

Governments seem to be justified in prioritizing public health and basic democratic rights over the economic liberties championed in initiatives like "Bar Lives Matter" for all of these reasons.

 

In certain cases, the government has tasked companies with enforcing new health and safety laws, leaving them to strike a balance between the rules and workers' rights, such as the right to privacy. 

For example, the President of a large personal care manufacturing company in Southern California explained his experiences dealing with the pandemic and reacting to employee safety issues at the office and in the plant: It's spreading like the flu, and I have no idea what people are up to on weekends. One of my employees came to see me and was visibly angry. One of her coworkers, with whom she shares a workspace, had shared a picture of them at a big barbeque on Instagram. 

Now that they're in the workplace, I have no control of what they do on their own time. I want all of my workers to be at ease, but the laws don't always permit this. This example illustrates how lawmakers are not always confronted with conflicting political principles, leaving people and companies with the daunting task of solving these issues on their own in the face of ambiguous legislation and inadequate guidance. 

To summarize, governments must devise policies that facilitate immediate public health results, such as stopping the spread of the virus and reducing deaths, while mitigating the temporary violation of fundamental political rights, in order to avoid the instances of justifiable incivility discussed in this article.

This is also for the benefit of corporations or other players tasked by governments with implementing public health policies and who may need more clarity in order to strike a balance between competing political values. 

Governments should explicitly express the requirements for when and how such political principles can be prioritized over others, and how violations of fundamental rights and liberties are justified to the public. Some ethical structures will aid in the direction and justification of such decisions. 

At the very least, politicians should understand when their policies are undermining or restricting certain democratic principles. 

When liberal democratic governments enact policies that infringe on certain rights and freedoms, such as by coercive measures, they should emphasize that these measures are temporary and provide for exceptions (for example, from uniform travel bans or obligatory mask wearing) for specific people or situations wherever possible.

You may also want to read more analysis about the COVID-19 Pandemic here.

The Ponnappan / Jai's Bucket list for the Next Decade ;) ~ MIT's top 10 picks for the world's next fintech leader

As the shock waves from the affirmative Brexit vote start to dissipate, there has been an increasing chatter concerning the fate of London as not only Europe's financial services hub but also a hub for startups as well. While Dublin, Berlin and Madrid are all strong contenders in the race for startup ecosystem supremacy, London by far is one of the strongest, particularly in the fin-tech sector.

Billions of capital continues to be pumped into the FinTech phenomenon with its soaring popularity an attractive proposition to investors. Companies continue to develop the industry through innovative ideas providing a wide variety of cost-effective services to customers and increasing efficiency and flexibility within the financial business.

Although we recognize the need for empowerment through connectivity worldwide, we view the Financial Technology application as one that goes beyond any brick and mortar institution and any country, but is malevolent to reinvigorate and lead the banking sector. 

We look forward to playing our part in catching this industry as it continues to expand into the mainstream financial sector in the midst of both calm and choppy weather.

FinTech visionaries are trying to remove the middle-man or intermediary and question conventional corporations who are less comfortable with software. 

FinTech start-ups are demonstrating that momentum is firmly with them; the speed with which they can develop in comparison to the world’s leading organizations is remarkable. The prolonged success of companies is testimony to this ascendancy.

Why Beautiful Brexit Makes Perfect Sense to Jai (& The Ponnappans)

Thank You, David (@DavidShrier at MIT)

A brief comment/Analysis of the Fin-tech Sector to date:

This is evident from the Innovate Finance 2020 Summit 2016 held in April where over 1400 people attended, including many power global leaders, technological experts and data analysts celebrating this new era of finance.

Friedrich Nietsche, German philosopher, once said this, 

"Want is not an proven reality, but rather an interpretation" 

The methodology: 

"In other words, it's all about making processes simpler and life easier."

When Jai throws a punch(Agility). 

I am always going for the bull's Eye(Accuracy).

It will hurt!(Seasoned)

Away from its prosperity and magnetism, just how sustainable is FinTech? 

There is a fear that Fin-tech may interfere too heavily with traditional business models, even though it provides a flexible and alternative crossing point for customers and businesses. 

(root cause/empowerment)

For years one has to mold and tend to those boulder shoulders. To design, strengthen, size and shape them just like a sledge hammer.

Financial services will always be in popular demand providing the worldwide economy is flourishing. Sending money, storing it, spending it, securing it - the functions are endless. 

Despite all that they have to offer, Fin-tech businesses still trail banks in terms of their market dominance even though the disparity is becoming less and less each year. For fin-tech companies, a relationship with a major bank is often a game-changer — for both sides of the equation. 

Becoming Agile(or hybrid) takes many years and many seasons of rigorous and relentless training, trying, testing, failing, experimenting and succeeding.

My source of inspiration & strength:

"Boxing agility drills are designed to help improve your speed and quickness while in the ring. Although many boxers develop their speed and agility to improve their punch accuracy and effectiveness, many boxing agility drills will also help you improve your defense skills."

Taking into consideration the speed with which the technological revolution and digital interference overwhelmed traditional industries, it seems outlandish for professional services giant Deloitte to recommend that it is unlikely that Fin-tech companies will have more than 6% of the market by 2025. Save for Santander, most banks are unhurried in their approach to utilizing financial technology. Because of this they are being caught up by Fin Tech companies who must now be considered as serious rivals.

Soon enough, the wealth management industry will have to contend with the widespread adoption of block-chain and artificial intelligence. We hope to be in a position to help the industry grapple with those future challenges -- which is why we are taking a full-time research role in studying global financial technology.

I've been focusing my thoughts, research and studies about our industry as a whole, To understand what's changing at the core of the economy, where one thing disconnected from another can impact in a Butterfly effect how people buy investments and move money.

Enterprise is a whole different bag of hammers, with much greater levels of complexity and product demands than what comes in dealing with consumers. The question whether some of these guys are up to that -- from my experience, firms that are consumer and try to pivot into the enterprise space, it usually doesn’t work out well.

Banks continue to use their supremacy to command high remittance fees and long-winded transaction times, but ultimately they will need to look into forming partnerships allowing them to apply FinTech services into their systems.

The technological landscape continues to progress as does the attitude towards money and the handling of it. Is it realistic to think that in the future our planet will be restricted to mobile and cashless payments as our inclination moves away from using cash frequently, if at all?

For a long period, the intent of Fin-tech has been to deliver speedy transactions at a reduced cost for the back and middle office of financial institutions, while the office facade develops relationships with clients and remain very much person-driven. 

Fin-tech businesses are moving away from offering a wealth of services and instead are providing precise dispensation specific to the customer. 

I see a change in that: from offering many to many to offering one service to a very specific niche and really focusing on providing superior product experience in that niche.

What FinTech has captured is a growing trend and grasped the current habitual climate around how we access and use money. It is going against the conformist who follows regulations which relies on banks developing their services and providing customers with an option not in place during its fabrication.

In today’s society, it is customers who require flexible models to correspond with the fast pace of life – suitably tailored for the constantly changing needs of individuals and organisations.

Digital platforms continue to advance with it now possible to take a loan from Paypal or get inventory financing from Amazon – further substantiation that FinTech is identifying ways to boost core financial communications and enhance the customer experience.

FinTech is going to continue shaping the landscape of the financial sector: My vision is that there’s going to be a lot of value for the consumer out of finance and FinTech going forward because of this change. Long-term it is difficult to gauge how much potential there is for further growth, but there is no doubt FinTech will continue to make a significant impact on the industry – watch this space. 

The Race.. Is On... 

With Europe still reeling from the implications of the Brexit, London’s supremacy in fintech (already under pressure from other conurbations) is now in question.  Who will take the leading role as the world’s fintech capital? We’ll examine the contenders…

Lead horses:

Singapore: We pick Singapore as our #1 contender to displace London as fintech capital of the world.  With a significant government effort to support fintech innovators (the Monetary Authority of Singapore even has a “Chief Fintech Officer”), dynamic incumbent banks like DBS and UOB, and a location that accesses the broader ASEAN region, we feel Singapore’s moment is at hand – if London isn’t able to maintain focus in the face of disruption, and if Singapore can fight off the sharp competition coming up immediately behind...

NYC: New York has unseated Boston as the #2 overall venture capital cluster in the U.S., with a heavy fintech spin thanks to the robust financial services industry coupled to a vibrant entrepreneurial ecosystem.  However, the local regulatory environment hobbles the Big Apple’s efforts to claim the top fintech spot (see: BitLicense). 

Hong Kong: Long a center of entrepreneurship and financial innovation, Hong Kong has maintained position in the shift to the new generation of fintech companies.  Ernst & Young places Hong Kong at 29% fintech adoption, the most anywhere in the world1. Its more liberal set of corporate regulations make it the natural interface between mainland China and the rest of the world – and China barely missed beating the U.S. for total venture capital activity in 2Q 2016 according to Preqin2. 

London: The Square Mile may be down, but she isn’t out.  London remains one of the largest innovation clusters in the world, retaining a sharp focus on fintech innovation with progressive government (in terms of fintech regulation and policy initiatives), a world-class set of universities, and a dynamic workforce with some of the best drawn from across Europe and around the world.  Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley announced intentions to remain engaged, but JP Morgan threatened moving “a few thousand” jobs3.If growth-oriented leaders can stave off isolationists, London will continue to reign.

Credible contenders:

Shanghai: It should come as no surprise that the top of our “contender“ list is the financial capital of mainland China.  Fiercely competitive, housing one of two independent exchanges, Shanghai is core to China’s drive to make the RMB a reserve currency. 

Zurich, Geneva & Zug: 12% of Switzerland’s economy is financial services, and the Swiss people and government have embraced the fintech revolution.  Swiss venture capital activity is consistently top-ranked, if not as energetic as London or New York and hindered by restrictive immigration policies. Although perhaps unfair to aggregate three municipalities into a single “Swiss cluster”, for our purposes they are equivalent to others in their peer group, and reasonably well coordinated. 

​Frankfurt: Germany is Continental Europe’s startup leader and Frankfurt is where the action’s at for German financial services. The sociopolitical environment limits labor market liquidity, and limited risk tolerance is a handicap, but flawless execution can catapult Frankfurt to the fore. 

Shenzhen: Also strong on the list is Shenzhen, home to a new generation of Chinese entrepreneurs with a dynamic, vibrant ecosystem in the making, as well as the other independent exchange in China (besides Shanghai).  If Shenzhen and Hong Kong were able to more closely coordinate activities, they could create a dominant “supercluster”.

Dubai: Dubai’s economy is built on diversifying beyond oil to a broader set of industries, and its position as a congenial environment for foreigners coupled to enlightened government policy makes for a legitimate position as a contender. Weather, economic volatility and other agitations surrounding the region are downsides.

Mumbai: Long a workhorse of the Indian entrepreneurial miracle, Mumbai continues to push the boundaries. The National Biometrics project is now spawning startups seeking to provide financial access and inclusion, leveraging cornerstone identity. 

Luxembourg: €3.5 trillion of assets are under management in Luxembourg4, and financial services comprise 27% of the economy5.  The government, academia and industry have banded together to pioneer the next wave of financial innovation, if they can move beyond the country’s traditionally conservative approach to business (disclosure: MIT has an agreement to advise on this effort). 

Dark horses:

Several jurisdictions are working to make themselves attractive to fintech entrepreneurs, including the Caymans, Barbados, Austin TX, Sao Paolo, Paris, Dublin, Moscow, Johannesburg, and Lagos in Nigeria.  Will one or more of these dark horses be able to carve out market share?  

And the winner is…

The next three to five years will see the outcome of the race unfold.  Where is the smart money going?  One thing’s for sure: Brexit uncertainty in London means greater opportunity for other regions around the world.

Help Save UMass Boston

Please join me in taking these critical actions to strengthen our campaign and influence key decision-makers.

UMass Boston faculty, staff and students led a protest outside a meeting of the University of Massachusetts trustees' Administration and Finance Committee Wednesday morning. [Photo: Katie Lannan/SHNS]

Come aboard the 

"Stop the Hikes and Cuts" bus!

Join UMass Boston students, faculty, staff, alumni, and community allies on Wednesday, June 15 as we confront UMass system President Marty Meehan, the UMass Boston Board of Trustees, and the UMB administration to say a big and public "No!" to tuition hikes, increased class sizes, and cuts to faculty, staff, and essential services.

Departing: 7am, Wednesday, June 15 - UMass Boston

Destination: 8:30am, Board of Trustees Meeting - UMass Memorial Medical Center, 55 North Lake Ave, Worcester, MA
Returning: Noon - UMass Boston

Note: The "Stop the Hikes and Cuts" bus is free and all supporters are welcome! Those who want to drive separately can meet us there! 

• Please send an email to FSU@umb.edu if you are planning to come onboard the bus!
• For updates and more info, visit the event Facebook page: The Stop the Hikes and Cuts Bus to the UMass Trustees meeting. 
• 
  Please take a moment to email your legislators to fully fund the UMass budget! 
• 
  Use this link to search for your legislator: http://wheredoivotema.com/bal/MyElectionInfo.aspx. 
• 
  For background information on the need for full state funding of public higher education, visit Higher Learning, Lower Funding: The Decline in Support for Higher Education in Massachusetts.

SAMPLE MESSAGE: 

Please support the Senate allocation for the UMass budget. Adequate funding for public higher education in Massachusetts is essential to ensuring that the Commonwealth has the skilled workforce it needs, that its citizens can participate in the knowledge-based economy and for the growth of the Commonwealth.

Four hundred faculty at UMass Boston were recently given notices of non-reappointment. This hurts our students by limiting the choice of classes, increasing class size, and delaying graduation. 
As a UMass [student, alum, staff member, faculty member, ally] I have seen the decline in support from the state lead to higher tuition and fees and now fewer faculty. We must provide an education of the highest possible quality to our students, and that requires adequate funding to maintain the faculty and staffing levels we currently have at UMass without shifting even more of our burden to students and their families through tuition increases.

More than two dozen Umass Boston students and faculty protested potential tuition hikes and budget cuts, calling it a “crime against education” while the UMass Board of Trustees met feet away inside the University of Massachusetts Club this morning . Holding signs and chanting “They say cuts, we say fight back,” students and members of the Faculty Staff Union argued proposed cuts would detract from the educational experience on campus, including a close student to teacher relationship.

“I really love my school. It’s unique. It provides accessible high quality education to urban youth who otherwise wouldn’t be able to afford it,” said Phil O’Connor, 21 of Boston, who graduated this spring. 

“It’s taking that accessibility away from those who might not have the opportunity.”

In May, UMB administration announced their proposed plans to increase class sizes from a 14:1 student to teacher ratio to 17:1 and slice 400 non-tenure teacher jobs to close a projected budget gap of $22.3 million.

UMB Chancellor J. Keith Motley, however, said he has not approved any cuts on campus and that most staff who received pink slips would be called back for the fall.

Inside the University of Massachusetts Club on Beacon Street today, the Umass Board of Trustee’s Committee on Administration and Finance postponed a vote on tuition rates, opting to wait until the state finalizes its budget. The UMass system won’t know its final appropriation until July.

“I think it is important we have a better sense of what we have,” UMass President Marty Meehan said.

He said his talks with House and Senate leadership “informed the decision that we should really wait to see what’s going to happen.”

“Our goal is to arrive at the best possible appropriation,” Meehan added. “There’s a lot of uncertainty given the revenue numbers.”

The specter of looming tuition increases comes after UMass trustees approved a 5 percent hike in June 2015 after two years of tuition and fee freezes. Tuition for the 2015-2016 school year ranged from $12,588 at UMass Dartmouth to $14,171 at UMass Amherst.




Mass trustee David Fubini said the university’s potential for revenue is limited in two ways, bound on one side by the potential for tuition increases and on the other by “the realities of state funding.”
“We have to find a way to get out of that box,” Fubini said. “And one of the ways is to do more with our existing operations, and that means getting more leverage out of our existing faculty and administrative staff, and that means academic efficiencies.”

Faculty, alumni and students from UMass Boston and Lowell marched outside the downtown Boston building where university officials met, protesting against potential tuition hikes and faculty reductions.
Joe Ramsey, a lecturer in English and American studies at UMass Boston, said he was concerned higher costs would force financially struggling students to take on more debt or pick up extra work hours outside of class, taking away attention from their studies.

“I have students who are working 40 hours a week at the same time they’re going to school already,” Ramsey said. “The $600, $700 difference this tuition hike could make could mean that they’re not going to be able to come back, and that’s wrong. We should be going in the other direction. We should be making tuition more affordable.”

UMass trustees said they wanted to wait to see how much money the state appropriates before making any decisions on raising tuition and fees.


UMass administrators expect the state’s budget to be finalized in the coming weeks. After that, a special Board of Trustees meeting will be called to vote on the price hikes.

“We’re going to advocate for a higher level of funding from the state,” Connolly said of the delay. 

“We think this strengthens our position.”

For officials, the logic was simple, he said: “Why act before you have to?”

In May, the Massachusetts Senate unveiled its version of the budget, which included a 1.5 percent increase in funding for the UMass system, slightly higher than the recommendations of 1 percent from the House and governor. The three budget proposals — recommending appropriations between $500 million and $520 million — will provide a modest increase in appropriation to the university system, especially compared to increases in recent years.

The protesters outside the meeting and the administrators inside agreed on at least one matter: The state was not spending nearly enough money on UMass.

“Fundamentally, the bigger problem is that there is not enough funding from the state,” said Anneta Argyres, director of the Labor Extension Program at UMass Boston. “We think first that the Legislature should fully fund public education in Massachusetts.”

Trustee David Fubini said the five-college system and the board should be looking for ways to do more with less, rather than thinking about cuts. He suggested looking to other university systems, in California, New Jersey, and Texas, that have faced declining state support.

Hess, of UMass Boston, said that at the end of the day, he wants to see administrators act in students’ best interest.

“Graduates from UMass stay here,” he said. “We’re the people who will drive Boston’s future.”

Posted by Jai Krishna Ponnappan