1

Prevention and Management of COVID-19

Name

Institution

Instructor

Course

Date
 2

Prevention and Management of COVID-19

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has been an unprecedented global health crisis, requiring

nations to adopt various legal and public health measures to mitigate its spread. Governments

worldwide have had to strike a delicate balance between protecting public health and preserving

individual liberties. In doing so, public health law, underpinned by ethical principles such as

proportionality and precaution, has played a critical role. The purpose of this paper is to analyze

how Australia and Sweden responded to the pandemic, with reference to the dilemma of liberty

and responsibility of the state. For more detail, it will assess to what extent the proportionality

principles and the precautionary principles had been applied. While implementing the strategy,

the Australian government used ambitious legal actions, namely the carbon price, and the

Swedish government chose to take non-legal and gentle actions voluntarily. Thus, this paper will

compare and contrast the two approaches, stating that while the two approaches are relatively

polar, both aim to strike a balance between the protection of the public and the rights of the

individual. At the same time, a compromise of applying the legal and ethical principles was

attempted, with different levels of success.

Legal Framework and Ethical Principles in Public Health Law

Public health law serves as a foundation for legal responses to public health crises,

enabling governments to implement measures that protect the population’s health (Alcayaga et

al., 2021; Smith et al., 2021). These laws often authorize states to limit certain individual

freedoms temporarily for the greater public good (Duckett, 2022; Sabatello et al., 2020). The

proportionality principle mandates that such interventions be proportional to the level of public
 3

risk posed (Cronert, 2022). It ensures that restrictions on personal liberties, such as movement

and assembly, are not more extensive than necessary to control the health threat (Jamrozik,

2022). The precautionary principle, in contrast, claims that governments have the responsibility

to act regarding minimizing health risks, including if there is scientific controversy about the

risks involved (de la Fuente Piñeiro et al., 2021). This principle rationalizes preventative actions

such as early ‘lock-down’ or ‘quarantine’ measures, which though might restrict individuals’

freedom, the mere intention being to protect against greater loss (Petrov & Donika, 2020).

During the entire period of the pandemic, states and governments have tried to be sensitive to the

conflict of interest, trying to provide for the public good while at the same time ensuring civil

liberties (Clerkin et al., 2020). Other legal theories also allow for temporary infringements of the

state in the name of the common good; these include social contract theories as well as

utilitarianism.

Jurisdiction 1: Australia

In reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic, Australia implemented stringent public health

precautions that were mainly regulated under the Biosecurity Act of 2015 (Jamrozik & Heriot,

2020). National lockdowns, border closures, obligatory quarantine for foreign arrivals, and social

distancing laws were all given to the government by this federal act, which gave it extensive

powers to address biosecurity threats (Duckett, 2022). There was a wide variety of stringent

measures taken across the nation since each state and territory had the power to decide how to

best address local concerns (Sabatello et al., 2020). As an example, the lockdowns imposed by

the government of Victoria were among the world's longest and strictest (Jamrozik & Heriot,

2020). Such legal measures aimed to help diminish the transmission, to protect the healthcare

system and, in general, to prevent overwhelming healthcare centers (Bastani et al., 2020). This
 4

has been followed by penalties that were set for any organization that failed to adhere to these

measures through fines and imprisonment and has also been followed by praises and

condemnations.

Australia’s application of the proportionality principle was evident in the way it tailored

its restrictions to perceived risks (Cronert, 2022). At the beginning of the pandemic, severe

measures were considered to be proper reactions to the existing risks connected with the spread

of the virus as well as to the potential harm to people’s health (Farrell et al., 2020). However, as

the pandemic went on, there were certain questions emerged as to whether the lockdowns,

curfews and strict measures were too harsh, especially in the areas that did not see many cases

(Duckett, 2022). The economic consequences of shuttering enterprises, along with the impact on

the psychological health of people in quarantine, added doubts to the concept of liberty’s

preservation against the virus (Kelly et al., 2020). However, by adopting correct measures to

prevent the spread of the virus, closing borders, and implementing strict quarantining measures

at the onset of the virus spread in Australia, it was able to maintain low infection rates as well as

deaths.

The ethical conflict between personal freedom and governmental responsibility was

further highlighted by the legal actions taken by Australia (de la Fuente Piñeiro et al., 2021).

Many people followed the regulations because they were important for the public's health, while

others were against them because they were too restrictive (Jamrozik, 2022). Many were left

wondering if it was acceptable for the government to limit their freedom of travel, assembly, and

employment due to these policies (Alcayaga et al., 2021). On the same note, the government

defends these interference tasks that they were in order to the government’s responsibility to

safeguard the health of the entire populace (Bastani et al., 2020). This dimension of state
 5

sovereignty and individual freedom was accompanied by ethical questions regarding the

pandemic control, which Australia’s strict legal measures would soon raise among the public

(Friedman et al., 2021).

Jurisdiction 2: Sweden

The manner in which Sweden handled the management of COVID-19 was strikingly

different from that of a great number of other countries, including Australia (Cronert, 2022).

Sweden implemented a Communicable Diseases Act-guided, voluntary policy rather than

mandatory lockdowns (Boersma et al., 2022). Physical separation, staying home to work, and not

traveling until necessary were guidelines put forward by the Swedish Public Health Agency

(Guttman & Lev, 2021). Because Sweden strictly adhered to the Protestant work ethic, which

prevented judicial actions from mandating compliance, many small companies, restaurants, and

elementary schools stayed open (Rukasha et al., 2022). This decision was based on the

presupposition that with minimal government incursion into personal liberties, a long-lasting

approach to the pandemic could be achieved (Petrov & Donika, 2020). However, this approach

brought attention from international and internal discussions and controversies when the

incidence and mortality rates in Sweden were higher than in other Nordic countries where stricter

measures were taken (Cronert, 2022). Defending the government’s action, the Swedish

government stated that its measures were balanced, seeking to protect the health of its population

while avoiding overstepping the population’s rights as citizens.

The principle of proportionality was central to Sweden’s legal response (Sabatello et al.,

2020). The government argued that strict lockdowns and legal restrictions would have imposed

disproportionate harm on society, particularly to mental health, the economy, and civil liberties

(Friedman et al., 2021). By allowing citizens the freedom to make informed decisions, Sweden
 6

sought to strike a balance between protecting public health and maintaining normalcy (Rukasha

et al., 2022). This approach of liberalization reduced legal restraints on individual rights. It was

in concordance with the highly developed cultural feature of self-governance and reliance on

organizational legitimacy in the country (Harapan et al., 2020). However, skeptics insisted that

this approach proved fatal for Swedes, especially the elderly, as mortality rates in the country

were considerably higher (Guttman & Lev, 2021). Although these legal measures were, in a

sense, proportional to trying to maintain the freedom of different individuals, they may not have

been proportional to the scale of the health threat, raising questions concerning the

underestimation of the COVID-19 threat by the Swedish government (Smith et al., 2021).

Sweden’s application of the precautionary principle also diverged from that of other

countries (Cronert, 2022). While the principle typically advocates for swift and decisive action in

the face of scientific uncertainty, Sweden took a more conservative stance, opting for measured,

voluntary interventions over more aggressive, legally enforced precautions (Bastani et al., 2020).

Swedish authorities reasoned that heavy-handed measures were unwarranted, given the available

data and the need to preserve individual freedoms (Petrov & Donika, 2020). This approach,

however, was criticized for not putting enough emphasis on the rate at which the virus was

spreading and the stress that it was going to bring to healthcare facilities, particularly at the start

of the outbreak (Meng et al., 2020). There were no legal standards to be complied with, and due

to Sweden's failure to rely on the legal measures, responses were delayed due to the rising

infection rates (Duckett, 2022). Sweden excelled at being liberal, though in delivering individual

freedom, there was moral apprehension as to what the government’s role is with its people

during a pandemic.
 7

Comparative Analysis of Australia and Sweden

The COVID-19 legislation of Sweden and Australia vary in their treatment of the relative

importance of individual liberties and public duties (Duckett, 2022). In 2015, the Biosecurity Act

mandated quarantines, mask use, and lockdowns in Australia (Jamrozik & Heriot, 2020). This

view maintains that the state must restrict individual liberties in order to maintain public health

(Friedman et al., 2021). Sweden, in contrast, took a more advisory approach, with individuals

being held personally responsible rather than being subjected to stringent legislative

requirements (Boersma et al., 2022). Legal responses to the epidemic varied across these

jurisdictions because of differences in political, legal, and cultural frameworks (Sabatello et al.,

2020).

Australia's approach prioritized the precautionary principle, acting swiftly to implement

preventive measures in the face of uncertainty (Liou & Liou, 2024). This led to strict lockdowns

and border closures aimed at minimizing transmission, even though these measures significantly

restricted personal freedoms (Duckett, 2022). In contrast, Sweden’s response applied the

precautionary principle with a more reserved interpretation, limiting drastic legal restrictions on

movement and personal activity (Rukasha et al., 2022). Swedish authorities assumed that the

people of this country would change their behaviors by themselves as needed to stop the virus

(Guttman & Lev, 2021). However, the validity of this particular approach has been controversial,

especially during the initial periods of the outbreak when the Swedish population faced higher

difficulties in contraction and fatalities as compared to the Australian counterparts (Cronert,

2022). Both demonstrated the proportionality of measures where Australia used more strict but

time-limited measures while Sweden employed mild but permanent measures (Smith et al.,

2021).
 8

The conflict between personal freedom and governmental responsibility is further shown

by the ways in which Sweden and Australia differ from one another (Jamrozik & Heriot, 2020).

To safeguard the most vulnerable and avoid a catastrophic breakdown of the healthcare system,

Australia emphasized state control and advocated for robust public health policies (Petrov &

Donika, 2020). Although this method successfully decreased transmission, it did so at the

expense of human freedoms and economic security in the long run, which is problematic from an

ethical standpoint (Liou & Liou, 2024). According to Boersma et al. (2022), Sweden's

commitment to individualism—that is, freedom and, more specifically, liberty—was supported

by a sense of responsibility and efforts to restrict the role of the state.

Legal and Ethical Issues in COVID-19 Management

Australia’s strict legal measures during COVID-19 raised significant ethical and legal

questions, particularly regarding the infringement on individual rights. The enforcement of

lockdowns, curfews, and quarantine orders led to widespread debates about the extent to which

the government could justifiably restrict personal freedoms to protect public health. Nonetheless,

these measures were substantially successful in dealing with the virus spread; however, they

were more detrimental to the vulnerable population, including lower-paid employees who could

not afford to work remotely (Singh et al., 2020) society marginalization. In more legal terms,

they were based on the Biosecurity Act 2015 and backed up by public health legislation, while

the measures’ proportionality and long-term effects on civil rights remained uncertain.

Sweden, by contrast, faced ethical dilemmas of a different nature. Its reliance on

voluntary measures to combat the pandemic emphasized individual responsibility over

government intervention. This approach focused more on the rights of individuals but created

controversies over the role of the state in the protection of society, especially the elderly in
 9

homes, who died at high rates (Dawson et al., 2020). The Swedish government did not apply

mandatory restrictions, and this created ethical discourses regarding the sacrifice of additional

strong public health measures as a result of protecting people’s freedom. From a legal

perspective, Sweden was following the Communicable Diseases Act for the non-compulsion

procedure. However, the opponents claimed that the non-compulsion procedure was detrimental

to public health in the name of personal freedom. This paper shows that the strategies of all two

countries explain how the protection of public health measures constrain personal freedoms

during a pandemic context.

Conclusion

Australia and Sweden’s contrasting responses to the COVID-19 pandemic highlight the

complexities of balancing individual liberty and state duty during a public health emergency.

Australia implemented a highly rigid set of laws that did not spare individual rights for the sake

of protecting people’s health; on the other hand, Sweden chose to be more liberal and allow its

citizens a certain degree of freedom. The proportionality and precautionary principles shaped

both countries’ responses, though they applied these principles in opposite ways. While legal

measures adopted in the Australian context were successful in addressing the problem of

transmissibility, they created too much social and economic impact. Sweden’s approach to non-

pharmaceutical interventions maintained civil liberties, but it likely recorded higher incidences of

virus infections and deaths. Thus, the experience gained from such opposite approaches will be

highly useful in evaluating further actions in combating future international health crises, in

which the government will continue to face the dilemma of preserving the population’s health

and preserving the rights of citizens.

References

Duckett, S. (2022). Public health management of the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia: the role

of the Morrison government. International journal of environmental research and public

health, 19(16), 10400.

Jamrozik, E. (2022). Public health ethics: critiques of the “new normal.” Monash Bioethics

Review, 40(1), 1–16.

Jamrozik, E., & Heriot, G. S. (2020). Pandemic public health policy: With great power comes

great responsibility (Royal Australasian College of Physicians Internal Medicine

Journal).

Cronert, A. (2022). Precaution and proportionality in pandemic politics: democracy, state

capacity, and COVID-19-related school closures around the world. Journal of Public

Policy, 42(4), 705–729.

Sabatello, M., Burke, T. B., McDonald, K. E., & Appelbaum, P. S. (2020). Disability, ethics, and

health care in the COVID-19 pandemic. American journal of public health, 110(10),

1523-1527.

Kelly, B. D., Drogin, E., McSherry, B., & Donnelly, M. (2020). Mental health, mental capacity,

ethics, and the law in the context of COVID-19 (coronavirus). International Journal of

Law and Psychiatry, p. 73, 101632.

Alcayaga, C., Loor-Sánchez, V., Oyarce-Hormazábal, N., Riveros-Riveros, M. P., & Reynaldos-

Grandón, K. (2021). PRS32 Management Of The Covid-19 Pandemic Around Public

Health: Ethical Perspectives. Value in Health, 24, S218-S219.

de la Fuente Piñeiro, C. H., Omaña-Covarrubias, A., Moya-Escalera, A., & Cuevas-Suárez, C.

(2021). Ethics in times of COVID-19. Mexican Bioethics Review ICSA, 2(4), 15-21.

Rukasha, I., Essop, U. B., & Vambe, T. M. (2022). Ethics in the Shadow of Covid-

19. Commonwealth Youth & Development, 20(2).

Clerkin, K. J., Fried, J. A., Raikhelkar, J., Sayer, G., Griffin, J. M., Masoumi, A., ... & Uriel, N.

(2020). COVID-19 and cardiovascular disease. Circulation, 141(20), 1648-1655.

Petrov, A. V., & Donika, D. A. (2020). Ethical and legal problems caused by the COVID-19

pandemic. Bioethics Journal, 14(2), 29-32.

Bastani, P., Sheykhotayefeh, M., Tahernezhad, A., Hakimzadeh, S. M., & Rikhtegaran, S.

(2020). Reflections on COVID-19 and the ethical issues for healthcare

providers. International Journal of Health Governance, 25(3), 185-190.

Liou, K. T., & Liou, A. K. (2024). Public Value and Ethical Challenges in the COVID-19

Pandemic Response. Public Integrity, 26(1), 1–22.

Farrell, T. W., Francis, L., Brown, T., Ferrante, L. E., Widera, E., Rhodes, R., ... & Saliba, D.

(2020). Rationing limited healthcare resources in the COVID‐19 era and beyond ethical

considerations regarding older adults. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 68(6),

1143–1149.

Friedman, D. N., Blackler, L., Alici, Y., Scharf, A. E., Chin, M., Chawla, S., ... & Voigt, L. P.

(2021). COVID-19–Related Ethics Consultations at a Cancer Center in New York City:

A Content Review of Ethics Consultations During the Early Stages of the

Pandemic. JCO Oncology Practice, 17(3), e369-e376.

Guttman, N., & Lev, E. (2021). Ethical issues in COVID-19 communication to mitigate the

pandemic: dilemmas and practical implications. Health Communication, 36(1), 116–123.

Meng, L., Hua, F., & Bian, Z. (2020). Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): Emerging and

future challenges for dental and oral medicine. Journal of dental research, 99(5), 481-

487.

Smith, M. J., Ahmad, A., Arawi, T., Dawson, A., Emanuel, E. J., Garani-Papadatos, T., ... &

Voo, T. C. (2021). Top five ethical lessons of COVID-19 that the world must

learn. Wellcome Open Research, 6.

Elves, C. B., & Herring, J. (2020). Ethical framework for adult social care in COVID-

19. Journal of Medical Ethics, 46(10), 662–667.

Singh, J. A., Bandewar, S. V., & Bukusi, E. A. (2020). The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic

response on other health research. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 98(9), 625.

Dawson, A., Emanuel, E. J., Parker, M., Smith, M. J., & Voo, T. C. (2020). Key ethical concepts

and their application to COVID-19 research. Public Health Ethics, 13(2), 127–132.

Harapan, H., Itoh, N., Yufika, A., Winardi, W., Keam, S., Te, H., ... & Mudatsir, M. (2020).

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): A literature review. Journal of infection and

public health, 13(5), 667-673.

Boersma, K., Büscher, M., & Fonio, C. (2022). Crisis management, surveillance, and digital

ethics in the COVID‐19 era. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 30(1), 2-

9.