Were the lockdown policies implemented around the globe during the Covid-19 pandemic racist?
A thought-provoking new paper by our Philosophy Professor Alex Broadbent and Pieter Streicher of the University of Johannesburg, argues that lockdowns during Covid-19 were racist.
This is because they disproportionately harmed and inadequately benefited the 1.2bn Black people living in sub-Saharan Africa.
The global adoption of lockdown as a policy response was driven by scientific institutions based in the Global North, which – the study authors argue – were negligent as to the effects of this policy in Africa, and therefore on a very large number of Black people.
Lockdown, a policy approach adopted in many places globally in response to Covid-19, required people to stay at home unless they had an exceptional reason to go out.
But this strategy is poorly suited to the living conditions in much of sub-Saharan Africa.
In many communities, crowded homes, informal employment, shared water sources, and communal sanitation facilities, made staying at home neither practical, safe, nor especially effective in preventing the spread of Covid-19.
Professor Broadbent and Pieter Streicher argue that lockdown policies caused unnecessary and significant harm to millions of Black Africans, with minimal health benefits compared to wealthier regions.
Yet viable alternatives existed: targeted protection measures, travel restrictions, or tailored community interventions.
The study authors say that it is a smokescreen to blame pre-existing inequalities for the consequences of policy decisions which could have been different, and fairer.
They say that powerful scientific institutions and international health agencies made choices - and chose options that were foreseeably less beneficial and more harmful for the large majority of Black people in the world.
The researchers introduce a powerful concept – negligent racism – highlighting that policy decisions can be racist without intent.
Instead, they say that a policy or institution is negligently racist when ‘it foreseeably harms a large number of people of certain races; the harm is unnecessary because viable alternatives exist and are epistemically accessible; and at least some of the harm arises because of race and not merely due to a correlation with other factors’.
The study authors call for a shift in how global public health decisions are made.
They argue that international bodies and policymakers need to actively include diverse perspectives, especially from regions disproportionately affected by global decisions.
The paper has been published in the journal Ergo.
/prod01/prodbucket01/media/durham-university/central-news-and-events-images/83431-1920X290.jpg)