The Jakarta Post
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Popular Reads
Top Results
No results found. Please check your search term and try again
Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search results
Popular Reads
Top Results
No results found. Please check your search term and try again
Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search resultsPrecautionary ethics as mitigation for unknown COVID-19 variants
Precautionary ethics is the most cost-effective and reasonable approach to navigating the uncertainties brought on by the rise of new coronavirus variants, particularly as the scientific community rushes to gain more knowledge on their transmissibility and other characteristics.
Change text size
Gift Premium Articles
to Anyone
Share the best of The Jakarta Post with friends, family, or colleagues. As a subscriber, you can gift 3 to 5 articles each month that anyone can read—no subscription needed!
Set as preferred source
T
he precautionary approach has been a core principle of environmental law for almost three decades. The approach, enshrined as Principle 15 of the 1992 Rio Declaration, states: “Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”
However, the precautionary approach is actually rooted in the philosophical concepts of human reasoning under uncertainty. The same approach has uses beyond the environment, and can also be applied against unknown dangers like COVID-19.
There was heated debate around March 2020 as to whether healthy people should wear masks. National authorities, including our own health minister, stated that wearing masks was required only for those who were sick.
International authorities like the World Health Organization (WHO) also refrained from recommending mandatory mask wearing except in certain settings. Although abundant research was available on mask wearing, the international scientific community was divided at that time with respect to the benefits of wearing masks in preventing the spread of COVID-19.
How should a people, a country or an institution decide when scientific consensus is lacking on a particular matter? The correct response is to adopt a cost-effective preventative measure to prevent any potential dangers.
Some argued at the time that the “scientific evidence” for wearing masks was insufficient, and therefore people shouldn’t be required to wear masks. This is flawed reasoning. If we were wrong that wearing masks did not prevent transmission, it would only cost us the price of a mask. But if we were right that wearing masks did indeed prevent transmission but we did not wear them, it could potentially cost us our lives.
Thus, the cost of being wrong far outweighs the cost of being right. In other words, in cases like these, it is more reasonable to err on the side of caution.
