The document discusses recommendations made by a group regarding COVID-19 restrictions and policies. It addresses whether the recommendations minimized harm while maximizing benefit, compromised fundamental principles, and whether biases were present. It discusses factors like urban vs. rural populations, economic status, age, race, ethnicity, and health conditions. It also includes ideas about the ethical decision-making process.

1. Discuss urban vs rural populations, social and economic status, questions
ASSIGNMENTYour dialogue should address the following ideas, points, and questions:Do
the group’s recommendations minimize the harm while maximizing the good?Do they
compromise fundamental principles? If so, how? Was it necessary? In other words, what
factors guided the group’s decisions? Were they biased? Were they fair?Address ideas on
justice and bias and who the recommendations favorDiscuss urban vs rural populations,
social and economic status, questions of age, race, and ethnicity, questions of health and
pre-existing conditions – what took the highest priority?What covert biases did you see?
How would you argue differently than your peers?Include ideas on the ethical decision
making process.Answer to the following postCivil liberties are guarantees and freedom that
will not be obstructi.e.,(i.e., Civil Rights). COVID-19 has restricted many of these civil
liberties. There were restrictions on movement in the form of curfews, surveillance, and
temperature checks to identify ones. The group recommended a curfew from 10 pm to 5
am. However, they did not restrict those exposed or tested positive for COVID-19. They did
compromise civil liberties and may tax the emotional and mental health of the populace, but
it was necessary for the better good of the city. The group was not biased but relatively fair
as they were only following the guidelines of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC). The group objectively saw following the CDC guidelines as the correct action versus
the reaction and possible harm it may cause to their city and its population. The group did
allow the essential resources and its worker to continue to commute and work. But they
only required the Healthcare and Childcare service workers to be mandated the vaccine
within a week of the FDA approving it. I’m afraid I have to disagree with this. It was fair that
only a specific group was forced to accept and be administered the vaccine. It should be the
entire city receiving the FDA-approved vaccine or not at all. Another questionable thing was
number 5, requiring employers to accommodate for their employees to wear facemasks and
personal protective equipment. The governor stated in number 1 that only essential
businesses will continue to run, assuming that will be determined by rules set by the city or
state government, I believe the government should accommodate the facemasks and
personal protective equipment, and the employers must enforce them they are properly
worn and utilized.Although the press release concludes with the goal of not limiting or
restricting anyone’s freedom, determining someone’s ability to move as they wish is a
restriction. Forcing a particular group of people to continue to work and endanger
themselves is not applying the conditions and restrictions equally across the population.
Despite all this, the group made an ethical decision for the greater good of their city.