I have noted that there is a slow seepage of academic material which is critical of the Covid mandates. Daniel Miller and Alvin Moss, writing at the medical ethics/philosophy journal, The Hastings Center Report, “Rethinking the Ethics of the Covid-19 Pandemic Lockdowns,” put the case that the lockdowns were in violation of the fundamental principle of liberty, and to over-ride that would require far greater evidence of harm from the non-lockdown situation than the health authorities gave.
As well, the lockdowns were harmful to much of the population, such as children, and people with a mental disability. That too raises the bar for the justification of lockdowns. Of course, the more basic argument, not addressed in an ethics paper, is that the lockdowns did not do what they were supposed to do, stop the transmission of the virus. As the virus was airborne, it could be transmitted from an open window in a house to a person across the street, just as easily as a transfer in the street. It all defied epidemiological reality. The case of China, with the most draconian lockdowns the human race have ever seen, refutes the lockdown ideology, as these lockdowns failed dramatically.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hast.1495?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email