The ground for the ethics of lockdown policies has radically shifted in the past three years. Libertarians started to be convinced that it is morally justifiable to impose constraints on liberties, including forced quarantine and social isolation. On September 7, according to the World Health Orignaztion, the mortality rate for COVID reached its lowest since March 9, 2020. I will take September 7 as the turning point for the ethics of the pandemic in this work. If we accept utilitarianism, deontology, or moral relativism, then, prior to the turning point, China’s Zero-COVID Policy was morally justified. Although China’s Zero-COVID Policy has remained controversial, I will propose that (1) the policy was justified on utilitarianism because it maximized utility, (2) the policy was justified on deontology because the policy is the Nash Equilibrium, and (3) the policy was justified on moral relativism because the policy was in accordance with the norms of the Chinese people.

The COVID 19 pandemic has highlighted the necessity of accurately and simply relying scientific discovery and information to the public. Among scientists, the practice is to reduce jargon, engage the audience through storytelling, and include enough detail to give a broad understanding of a narrow topic. Conflict between journalists and scientists leads to a creation of a different narrative for the general public. The news site CNN.com was searched with the google archive function by year for articles that included the keyword vaccine. Articles were sorted into categories of main focus such as political, cultural and scientific or mixed. Results were analyzed and conclusions made about the amount of content in each category for the kind of narrative being written about vaccines, with most years having most articles in the political category. Possible effectiveness of mixed categories were discussed and areas future research identified.