In an effort to contain the spread of COVID-19, many states and countries have adopted public health restrictions on activities previously considered commonplace: crossing state borders, eating indoors, gathering together, and even leaving one’s home. These policies often focus on specific activities or groups, rather than imposing the same limits across the board. In this Article, I consider the law and ethics of these policies, which I call tailored policies.In Part II, I identify two types of tailored policies: activity-based and group-based. Activity-based restrictions respond to differences in the risks and benefits of specific activities, such as walking outdoors and dining indoors. Group-based restrictions consider differences between groups with respect to risk and benefit. Examples are policies that treat children or senior citizens differently, policies that require travelers to quarantine when traveling to a new destination, and policies that treat individuals differently based on whether they have COVID-19 symptoms, have tested positive for COVID-19, have previous COVID-19 infection, or have been vaccinated against COVID-19.In Part III, I consider the public health law grounding of tailored policies in the principles of “least restrictive means” and “well-targeting.” I also examine how courts have analyzed tailored policies that have been challenged on fundamental rights or equal protection grounds. I argue that fundamental rights analyses typically favor tailored policies and that equal protection does not preclude the use of tailored policies even when imperfectly crafted.In Part IV, I consider three critiques of tailored policies, centering on the claims that they produce inequity, cause harm, or unacceptably limit liberty. I argue that we must evaluate restrictions comparatively: the question is not whether tailored policies are perfectly equitable, wholly prevent harm, or completely protect liberty, but whether they are better than untailored ones at realizing these goals in a pandemic. I also argue that evaluation must consider indirect harms and benefits as well as direct and apparent ones.

中文翻译：

---

定制公共卫生政策

为了遏制 COVID-19 的传播，许多州和国家对以前被认为司空见惯的活动采取了公共卫生限制措施：跨越州界、在室内就餐、聚会，甚至离开家。这些政策通常侧重于特定的活动或群体，而不是全面施加相同的限制。在本文中，我考虑了这些政策的法律和道德规范，我称之为量身定制的政策。在第二部分中，我确定了两种类型的定制政策：基于活动的和基于群体的。基于活动的限制应对特定活动的风险和收益的差异，例如在户外散步和在室内用餐。基于组的限制考虑了组之间在风险和收益方面的差异。例如，不同地对待儿童或老年人的政策，要求旅行者在前往新目的地时进行隔离的政策，以及根据个人是否有 COVID-19 症状、COVID-19 检测呈阳性、以前是否有过COVID-19 感染，或已接种 COVID-19 疫苗。在第三部分中，我将根据“最少限制手段”和“目标明确”的原则考虑量身定制的政策的公共卫生法基础。我还研究了法院如何分析因基本权利或平等保护理由而受到挑战的量身定制的政策。我认为基本权利分析通常有利于量身定制的政策，即使制定不完善的政策，平等保护也不排除使用量身定制的政策。在第四部分，我考虑了对量身定制的政策的三种批评，集中在它们产生不公平、造成伤害或不可接受地限制自由的主张上。我认为我们必须对限制进行比较评估：问题不在于量身定制的政策是否完全公平、完全防止伤害或完全保护自由，而是在大流行病中实现这些目标方面，它们是否比不量身定制的政策更好。我还认为，评估必须考虑间接的危害和好处以及直接和明显的危害和好处。但在大流行中实现这些目标方面，它们是否比未定制的更好。我还认为，评估必须考虑间接的危害和好处以及直接和明显的危害和好处。但在大流行中实现这些目标方面，它们是否比未定制的更好。我还认为，评估必须考虑间接的危害和好处以及直接和明显的危害和好处。