Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Public justification and expert disagreement over non-pharmaceutical interventions for the COVID-19 pandemic
  1. Marcus Dahlquist1,
  2. Henrik D Kugelberg2
  1. 1 Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
  2. 2 The McCoy Family Center for Ethics in Society, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
  1. Correspondence to Henrik D Kugelberg, The McCoy Family Center for Ethics in Society, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA; henrik.kugelberg{at}


A wide range of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) have been introduced to stop or slow down the COVID-19 pandemic. Examples include school closures, environmental cleaning and disinfection, mask mandates, restrictions on freedom of assembly and lockdowns. These NPIs depend on coercion for their effectiveness, either directly or indirectly. A widely held view is that coercive policies need to be publicly justified—justified to each citizen—to be legitimate. Standardly, this is thought to entail that there is a scientific consensus on the factual propositions that are used to support the policies. In this paper, we argue that such a consensus has been lacking on the factual propositions justifying most NPIs. Consequently, they would on the standard view be illegitimate. This is regrettable since there are good reasons for granting the state the legitimate authority to enact NPIs under conditions of uncertainty. The upshot of our argument is that it is impossible to have both the standard interpretation of the permissibility of empirical claims in public justification and an effective pandemic response. We provide an alternative view that allows the state sufficient room for action while precluding the possibility of it acting without empirical support.

  • COVID-19
  • epidemiology
  • political philosophy
  • public policy

Data availability statement

There are no data in this work.

This article is made freely available for personal use in accordance with BMJ’s website terms and conditions for the duration of the covid-19 pandemic or until otherwise determined by BMJ. You may use, download and print the article for any lawful, non-commercial purpose (including text and data mining) provided that all copyright notices and trade marks are retained.

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

There are no data in this work.

View Full Text


  • Presented at We thank the audiences at the Knowledge and Power: Epistemic Conflicts in Democracy Conference, and the Association for Social and Political Philosophy Workshop: Crises of Liberalism?

  • Contributors Both authors contributed equally to the article.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Other content recommended for you