Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T08:31:41.575Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conceptual Issues in COVID-19 Pandemic: An Example of Global Catastrophic Risk

A Response to: The Traditional Definition of Pandemics, Its Moral Conflations, and Its Practical Implications: A Defense of Conceptual Clarity in Global Health Laws and Policies by T. De Campos, Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics (CQ 29(2))

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 December 2020

KONRAD SZOCIK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Responses and Dialogue
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , January 2021 , pp. 199 - 202
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. De Campos, T. The traditional definition of pandemics, its moral conflations, and its practical implications: A defense of conceptual clarity in global health laws and policies. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2020;29(2):205–17. doi:10.1017/S0963180119001002 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

2. COVID-19 Coronavirus Pandemic; Available at https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ (last accessed 26 March 2020).

3. See note 1, De Campos 2020.

4. Undurraga, E. Commentary: Challenges to achieve conceptual clarity in the definition of pandemics. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2020;29(2):218–22. doi:10.1017/S0963180119001014 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

5. Bostrom, N. Existential risks: Analyzing human extinction scenarios and related hazards. Journal of Evolution and Technology 2002;9(1)Google Scholar.

6. Currie, , ÓhÉigeartaigh, S. Working together to face humanity’s greatest threats: Introduction to the future of research on catastrophic and existential risks. Futures 2018;102:1–5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7. Turchin, A, Denkenberger, D. Global catastrophic and existential risks communication scale. Futures 2018;102:27–38 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8. Beckstead, N. How much could refuges help us recover from a global catastrophe? Futures 2015;72:36–44 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9. Gowdy, J. Our hunter-gatherer future: Climate change, agriculture and uncivilization. Futures 2020;115:102488 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10. Turchin, A. Approaches to the prevention of global catastrophic risks. Human Prospect 2018;7(2):53–65 Google Scholar.

11. Kareiva, P, Carranza, V. Existential risk due to ecosystem collapse: Nature strikes back. Futures 2018;102:39–50 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12. Szocik, K. Is human enhancement in space a moral duty? Missions to mars, advanced AI and genome editing in space. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2020;29(1):122–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13. Liu, H-Y, Cedervall, Lauta K, Michiel, Maas M. Governing boring apocalypses: A new typology of existential vulnerabilities and exposures for existential risk research. Futures 2018;102:6–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14. Avin, S, Wintle, BC, Weitzdörfer, J, ÓhÉigeartaigh, SS, Sutherland, WJ, Rees, MJ. Classifying global catastrophic risks. Futures 2018;102:20–26 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15. See note 13, Liu et al. 2018.