Comparing Covid-19 Responses: Public Health and Human Rights

Abstract This chapter focuses on the challenging balancing act that public health in general, and pandemics in particular, give rise to, involving the weighing of risks, incomplete scientific evidence, the importance of human life, and respect for civil liberties. The chapter compares the Covid-19 responses of four high-income liberal democracies (New Zealand, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Sweden) which adopted differing pandemic responses including elimination, controlled transmission, and herd immunity. The analysis compares a range of key choices made by each country, for example the timing of border restrictions, the timing, duration, and intensity of lockdowns, and the point at which vaccine passports were introduced. The chapter traces the role of law and rights discourse in shaping the timing and design of pandemic response measures. The chapter’s goal is to identify how law can support governments to respond appropriately to a pandemic or other significant public health threat and in doing so strike a reasonable balance between containing the pandemic and respect for human rights, not only civil liberties but positive rights to health and healthcare. The analysis reveals that New Zealand is the most positive example of incisive and timely action that at the same time respected human rights and contained the pandemic through a combination of travel restrictions, lockdown, and mandatory vaccination. The comparison showcases the possibility for a liberal democracy to implement a highly successful response to a pandemic while ensuring respect of the rule of law.