“COVID-19 and Issues on Global Social Justice”(Chiba University Leading Research Promotion Program Online
International Symposium)
Preliminary Version (202203)1
Date and Time： Wednesday 27 October 2021, 15:00-17:30, Japan Standard
Time

Abstract: This is based on the transcript of the seminar “COVID-19 and Issues on Global
Social Justice”. Section 1 introduces the topic “Coping with COVID-19: Policy Response andCitizens’ Well-being in Australia (by Lindsay Oades ：Professor ,the University of Melbourne
Australia); Section 2 topic "Well-being and fairness under the crisis of COVID-19: A
Perspective from Positive Political Psychology "(by Masaya Kobayashi：Professor, Chiba
University); Section 3 discusses the topic “COVID-19 and Gender-Related Issues” (byMs.Afsana Begum: Researcher, Chiba University ). And then section 4 is discussants time.

Discussants (with their own topics):
・Prof. Jiro Mizushima (Professor, Chiba University)
・Prof. Takayuki Kawase (Associate Professor, Chiba University)
・Prof. Hikari Ishido (Professor, Chiba University)

1

Some parts have not been checked by speakers or participants.
Page 1 of 50

Organizer: Chiba University Leading Research Promotion Program - Chiba Studies on Global
Fair Society: A Multidisciplinary Approach (Led by its Global and Regional Research Group）
Introduction
As we are fully aware, our two years almost have been devastated by the outbreak of Covid19 and then there have been so many social issues, disastrous, or would say maybe catastrophic.
And then we should think about a global kind of social justice. Chiba University’s Leading
Research Promotion Program (led by Prof. Jiro Mizushima) has been pursuing global social
justice fit for the formulation of a future-oriented fair society. In the face of the outbreak of
COVID-19, we host this online international symposium to consider the global pandemic’s
ensuing and unprecedented impact on the global society at large, regional integrations, andsmaller-scale regional societies, in terms of “justice” and “well-being.”
Hikari Ishido:
Good afternoon, everyone. I'd like to continue with making some remarks on today's setup.
Here's the list of speakers, panelists, and moderators for today. First, we'll be welcoming
Professor Lindsay Oades, the University of Melbourne Australia and then he will be delivering
his lecture on this topic, and then Professor Masaya Kobayashi will be delivering his lecture
and then followed by their lectures, Ms. Afsana, she will also be giving her speech or lecture.
And then, following these presentations or lectures, we would like to have a panelist session.
Section1 (lectures by Prof. Lindsay Oades)
Thank you very much. very pleased to be joining all of you and thank you very much for theinvitation. In the brief time I have, my goal is to give you a sense of what's happening in theAustralian context, the policy responses. I'll say a little bit about the well-being of people inAustralia. But I'll particularly try to give you a sense of the politics behind the policy inAustralia as it relates to the Australian Federation and how we're structured. And I'll try to pointout to you, explain to you how I believe it's very much become a good example of a battle
between a sort of conservative-liberal individual view of the world and that side of politics

Page 2 of 50

versus a more progressive view of politics. And I'll explain the way that's played out across thedifferent states of Australia. I am not sure how much people understand about Australia but I
will explain this because it gives a context in which the policy and political and ethical debatesoccur.
Figure 1 LABOR and LIBERAL in Australia

So, firstly, Australia is a federation of multiple states. We have a population of approaching 26
million（2021）. Our federal government that is our national government is currently a LiberalNational Coalition. So that's the conservative side of politics. And we are likely to have an electionin March of next year (2022), we have to have one before May. We are based as in the map there(Figure 1). We have six states and two territory governments. So, these states make up thefederation for the federal government. The states are largely based on the original British colonies.
And what you see there on the map is the states that are currently blue the liberal or conservative
states, as is the federal government, and then the red states are the more progressive states, whichis the Australian Labor Party.
What you have in terms of the population in the New South Wales, which is the state of Sydney,
which is where my cursor is that is 8.1 million about 26 million people (2021). So, almost 31-32%
of people are living in the New South Wales State, which is currently the conservative state as wellas the federal government is a conservative state. However, in the red state of the progressive state,
which is where Melbourne is, 26% of us in Australia are living there. So, you have something
about 57% (2021) of the whole population is living in these two states and you will notice that one

Page 3 of 50

is conservative at the moment, and one is progressive. And just to give you a sense of thejourney, that we have been on in terms of a timeframe.

Figure 2 Australia Situation

Going back to March of 2020, we see two major clusters of cases of Covid in that time
(Figure 2). Both of these mostly occurred in the Melbourne state, so in the progressive state,
you have a conservative federal government, promoting certain ideology or view of the world,
yet you have most of the cases, and therefore most of the restrictions and lockdown and impact
on the economy happening in a progressive state. And then much later, more recently, sinceJune of this year, both Sydney and Melbourne, the two big states, the Delta variant came andimpacted on both states. So that is a kind of a timeframe that I'm trying to illustrate and I'll say
further about how that has impacted the debates, both politically and in terms of the policy. And
you'll just see down the bottom there how the deaths mirror the case numbers, and there are no
real surprises there. By world standards, we probably have not had that huge amount of cases
or deaths by our population, but it certainly has been far from perfect as well. So, to put somecontext on that, as I've said, I'm trying to build a context here in which to understand the policy
and the political debates. So, the two biggest states, New South Wales and Victoria with 57.3%of the population, so effectively the impact of that on the economy, and most of the politicaldebates are basically what is happening in New South Wales compared to what is happening inPage 4 of 50

Victoria and then what the federal government siding with New South Wales that is being on theside of New South Wales because that is the conservative side of politics. So, what I'm arguing
here is that the two states have represented the two different sides of conservative versus
progressive ideology. And interestingly, the way we're set up, the way the health system is set up,
the hospitals, and public health is largely delivered by the state governments. So, for example, a
health minister in New South Wales and a health minister in Victoria, whereas most of its fundedby the federal government.
What we have also seen is unusual in Australia, normally we have premiers of each state. But
also, we've seen the rise of the chief health officers who had been advising the premiers aboutpublic health orders and that has been very unusual in terms of the rise of the power of the separate
states, and the debates between them. So that our federal Prime Minister formed a national cabinet,
which included the federal government, and all the state premiers, making joint decisions, whichis quite an unusual structure that we've never seen before. So, we're seeing how Covid-19 and thepolicy and politics around it have been creating new developments in our very own democracy.
What I want to highlight is a comparison that I've tried to highlight between the states and also
how that's played out in federal politics and federal policy (Table 1).
Table 1 Comparison of LNP and ALP

Page 5 of 50

So, on the Table 1 left side, what we have what I call the economically liberal view andsocially conservative view, represented by the Liberal National Party, which is a coalition in
our country. They are the incumbent government at a federal level but also, they holdgovernment in New South Wales, the most populous state. If we compare that to the progressive
Australian Labor Party, they are currently not in federal power, but they are in power ingovernment in the second most populous state of Victoria, which is where I am at the moment
and there is also a very strong leader.
So, you have these federal and the premier of the major popular state, basically having a lotof political ideology and politics with the Australian Labor Party, with Victorians state, and that
became very interesting in 2020, because it was the Victoria state on the right here, which was
the one that had the big cases, and also led to the major lockdowns and restrictions. So, on theleft, we had the federal government and New South Wales Government promoting freedom andprioritizing the economy. Whereas in the locked-down state of Victoria, we had the progressive
government prioritizing public health and providing support to people. And as I mentioned, in
2020, most of New South Wales and most of Australia had low infections apart from a coupleof outbreaks due to one cruise ship in Sydney, whereas things in Victoria the progressive state
were very bad and that was where we experienced their extended lockdown. In Melbourne,
where I am, we've just finished our sixth lockdown. On the Table 1 left side, the other major
debate is that the federal government is responsible for vaccinations and as I'll show in a
moment, the Australian vaccination uptake for a wealthy nation like Australia was very slow.
And there were debates about why that was, but in essence, it appeared that the federal
government simply did not order enough vaccinations in the first instance. So, while thesenegative things are happening on the Table 1 right side in Victoria, we have Rupert Murdoch,
who controls a lot of the Australian media and he's on the conservative side of politics.
So, while the progressive government is locking down Melbourne and Victoria, theconservative media across the country is attacking very heavily the Victorian Government forbeing totalitarian, intervening too much, and not caring about the economy or individual
liberties and rights. More recently, this year in the second half of 2021, with the rise of the wave
of infections due to the Delta virus, Sydney, New South Wales on the Table 1 left becameheavily infected. And they were prioritized due to that with the vaccines when they became

Page 6 of 50

available. However, on the Table 1 right side, the Victorian progressive state also got a Delta
variant, and again, went into lockdown, and have been playing catch up with vaccinations. Andso, there's been a lot of political and policy debate between the two states, with the federal
government on the side of New South Wales, because it's a Conservative government. To put thisin context, as you know, Australia is a very large country. You have states like Western Australia
that have been Covid Zero for most of the two years. Queensland has had some outbreaks. But by
and large, you have these huge landmasses on the rest of the country that has been relatively
untouched by Covid-19. So, in essence, what's happening in Sydney and Melbourne has driven
most of the debates. This will probably not be that similar to the rest of the world, but just looking
at what sort of things we have done to prevent and contain Covid-19 in Australia. Firstly, of course,
testing and isolation, a lot of social distancing, contact tracing, and the different improvements ofcontact tracing as they occurred. Normal things like hand washing, many political and individual
liberty debates about mask-wearing, but essentially now mask-wearing has become a major partof the Australian way of life in the cities. Of course, more recently, deep cleaning and ventilationin schools have become a major initiative. Quarantine and the reason that's in red (Figure1) is thefederal government is responsible for quarantining. However, they chose not to do it and they
handed it to the states and the quarantining was done largely in hotels, which has been notparticularly successful. There have been multiple outbreaks from this and once again, debates
between the state and the federal governments. Because of that, and because of the slow
vaccinations due to the delay in the vaccination supply, the state governments have relied heavily
on restrictions and lockdowns.
So, locking down, not allowing people to go to work to school in Sydney and Melbourne, having
travel restrictions five kilometers from one's home, not allowed to visit other people's homes, etc.
And of course, over time, particularly in Melbourne, which has had 262 days of restrictions over
two years, across six lockdowns (as of 27 OCT 2021), people start to get very frustrated by that.
And then they look for someone to blame, be it a state government or a federal government. So,
most of the arguments are about whose fault is these delays in the vaccination rates and why do
we need lockdowns for so long. One of the other big tools that we've seen is border closures,
obviously internationally, but within the country itself with certain states closing the borders toother people from other states, which has separated the country in a way that I have never seen in

Page 7 of 50

my lifetime. In the context of vaccinations, we first had AstraZeneca, the Oxford vaccination
which has got a very bad reputation because it was promoted poorly even though it's successful
vaccination. And more recently Pfizer has become the main vaccination and Moderna has been
added.
The current debates are really around the vaccination requirements on people to go back towork. And one of the issues is, should the state or government mandate the vaccinations or
should they be a condition of work from the employer, which I will come back to. We're alsoseeing very recently the rise of some potential treatments for people who have contracted
Covid-19. So, essentially, we've seen our way work through in a very messy way through themany possibilities of initiatives that could occur. To put that in a little bit of context, I was
talking about the delays in the vaccinations. So again, for a wealthy nation like Australia, you
would expect that we would get vaccinated and it would happen reasonably quickly, similar tothe state like the United Kingdom or Canada.
Figure 3 Covid-19 vaccine rollout to date for selected countries

Note: Showing vaccine doses administered per hundred people to date in each country. Last data
as of 25 October 2021.
As you can see in Figure 3, Australia in the red, we've made a very late start this year toincrease vaccinations. But very recently, we've made a very rapid increase in the vaccination.
And of course, you'll probably compare that to Japan, which is not that similar. It's probably a

Page 8 of 50

little light, by world standards for a rich nation, but has certainly it still remains ahead of Australia.
But during that lag period, between, March and July, there was a lot of frustration and politicaldebate, because of the reliance on restrictions and lockdowns due to the low vaccination rates. So,
hopefully, I've provided you with some context, both of how the nation and the government
structure is, but I'm trying to emphasize how the very fact that the two largest states, New South
Wales and Victoria had governments of different political ideologies, has been almost a perfectstorm in terms of a debate about individual and business rights versus public health, and moreprogressive views of politics.
One of the questions I'd like to leave you with, and which is very alive in this country, at least,is the issue of being vaccinated. Most people are now getting vaccinated, and we will probably
end up with a 95% vaccination rate for people above 12. But there is still a large debate about theindividual rights about vaccinations, there's still an active anti-vaccination group, not as much as
in the US, but there is here. And one question I will leave you with is while there is a legal rightto choose to not be vaccinated, is there a moral right to choose not to be vaccinated. Practically,
one of the current debates, like the people protesting here is should the government as a wholecreate conditions for vaccination requirements to work or is the role of individual employers andorganizations to do that. So, I will leave you with those questions. Hopefully, I've provided you
with a bit of Australian context to at least add to some of the further discussions.
Section 2 (lectures by Prof. Masaya Kobayashi)2
Thank you for this opportunity of making a presentation on Well-Being and Fairness in Corona
Calamity. And so, my presentation is from the viewpoint of positive political psychology. So, at
first, I will talk about something about this.
These are well-being social indicators. But the concept of the positive political cycle is new,inspired by some professors, scholars, including Professor Oades, I push forward the idea of
positive political psychology. Figure 4 is the significance of the positive or collective, the first
quadrant of this figure. Because, in most cases, positive psychology deals with individual2This speech is unchecked and includes ongoing analyses, and the results are tentative. The final
results will be made public in the future.
Page 9 of 50

psychology. So, I have made two surveys in 2020 and 2021 (Table 2). So, I will investigate therelationship between well-being and Corona calamity on this data. So, these are the basic
characteristics of participants of the two studies, but I will skip this. So, at first, I'm going to use
the indicators of Professor Marin Seligman's well-being theory, which is the five-dimensional
well-being positive emotion, engagement, relationship, meaning, and achievement (Figure 5).
So, this is very popular in present positive psychology. And so, I investigate the change of wellbeing before and after Corona in 2020 and that is subjective recognition of people (Table 3).
So, it is easy to see the change of subjective well-being, this indicates almost all items show abad change. There is a well-being drop after Corona, especially engagement happiness, andrelationships.
And also how I compare the change in well-being between the first and second surveys.
Figure 6 shows the first survey one and service two and as regards the survey one before Corona
and after Corona. So, we can see the results of the survey one and two are very close, but thenumerical value of survey two is somewhat lower than survey one. This means that survey two
was conducted later. So, the crisis or the decrease of well-being develops. And Figure 7 shows
similar results by the usage of the I COOPE scale by Isaac Prilleltensky of Miami University.
The left-hand side shows the comparison between survey one and survey two. We can see allnumbers are lower in survey two and our right-hand figure shows similar results by thesatisfaction with life scale developed by Ed. Diener.
Figure 4 Positive Political Psychology

Page 10 of 50

Table 2 Participants of Two Studies
Survey1 (%)

Survey2 (%)

N

5000

6885

number of questions

383

401

16 prefectures with big cities

3780(75.6)2435(35.4)

32 prefectures without big cities

1220(24.4)

4450(64.6)

male

2500(50)4427(64.3)

female2500(50)2458(35.7)

Residence

Sex

Age
10's

834(16.6)37(0.5)20's

834(16.6)

460(6.7)

30's833(16.6)1043(15.1)

40's

833(16.6)1738(25.2)

50's

833(16.6)

1750(25.4)

60's

833(16.6)1238(18.0)

70's and more

619(9.0)

Marital status
married2294(45.9)4091(59.4)

unmarried2469(49.4)

2254(32.7)

separation

237(4.7)

540(7.9)※

Occupation
executive of company or association

46(0.9)124(1.8)1513(30.3)

2097(30.5)

248(5.0)410(6.0)

employment586(11.7)806(11.7)

civil servants153(3.1)

257(3.7)

self-employed, family employee, free lance302(6.0)822(11.9)

office worker, staff of association
part-time employee, contract employee,
dispatched laborpart-time worker, part-time job, homebased

workers

without

ancontract

faculty member

123(1.8)

student

837(16.7)

96(1.4)homemaker

718(14.4)

767(11.1)

pensioner

151(3.0)603(8.8)

none

393(7.9)693(10.1)

First survey: May 2020, N5000, Second survey: Marth, 2021, N6885(Fairness Research) Whole prefectures in Japan
Figure 5 What is Well-being

Page 11 of 50

Table 3 WB changes between before and after corona**subjective recognition: May 2020, Survey 1, N5000
Figure 6 Changes in WB (comparison between 2 surveys)

Page 12 of 50

Figure 7 Results by the usage of the I COOPE

Figure 8 The other indicators of WB

Figure 8 shows the other indicators of well-being such as work engagement and Eudaimonia or
Hedonia and orientation and satisfaction and happiness. We can see in the survey the numbers arelower in survey 2 for almost all indicators and Figure 9 shows the other items. So, there are some
replacements of the items in the two surveys, but many are not much different. The number ofsurvey 2 is lower in only the green part, this part signifies the Hedonia and Eudaimonia orientation.
The other items are characters in social, economic, and political situations in Japan. So, in these
items, there are fewer differences between the two surveys. So, it signifies that our well-being andorientation and characteristics, there is a big difference, but the other items, there is little difference
between two surveys. So, we can see the calamity of Covid-19 caused the decrease in well-being.
Figure 9 The other items

Page 13 of 50

Figure 10 shows changes in mind, body, and values. The items used in this section are mainly
in survey 1 because survey 2 does not include these items. The second survey was conductedby this project that is a fairness project. And this is survey 1, this is quite close to the former
slide. This signifies that before Corona and after Corona. The items show remote work,
rewarding sense, online environment, asset, income, sense of the cost of living, dwelling,
employment stability. And so, in some cases, there is a decrease in well-being and values inthese items and this is almost as imagined results. Figure 11 is the support for the ruling party.
This slightly decreases after Corona but this is the results in the first survey. And so, I supposethat in the second survey and now at present, there is some more difference of support of theruling party.
Figure 10 Survey1 (Before and after corona in terms of items investigated)

Page 14 of 50

Figure 11 e support for the ruling party.

Figure 12 Life satisfaction, Life hope, Life happiness, and Life anxiety

And Figure 12 shows life satisfaction, life hope, life happiness, and life anxiety. So, in general,
positive people in satisfaction, hope, and happiness are generally more than negative people. But
the same tendency appears in this study, but there is a lot of anxiety here than in usual cases. Thisis the H7_4 life anxiety and this is surrounded by green columns. So, it can be imagined because
the corona calamity that signifies life anxiety is one of the most conspicuous points and we asked
about the contents of anxiety (Figure 13).
Figure 13 Contents of anxiety

Page 15 of 50

Note: N=5000, multiple answers
So, the right block signifies the items which can be imagined related to Corona problems
and the red block signifies infectious diseases such as the new Coronavirus. This is the majoranxiety, but we can find apart from the red block, there is various anxiety that is related toCorona calamity. And also, we analyzed the relationship between the change of brightness anddarkness with these. So, I can see the increased brightness they are correlated with the only
emergency, disaster, and crime. On the other hand, increased darkness is related to everything
except children and anxiety. So, the increased negativity is related to almost all anxieties. And
Figure 14 shows deterioration of mental state and bipolarization. It is interesting because we
can easily imagine that the Corona problem decreases people's happiness, but this slide shows
both positive and negative people increased in survey 2 in comparison with survey 1. But somepeople have become more negative than usual, but some people have become more positive inboth surveys. This signifies many people are more negative because of the Corona problem, butsome people have become more positive after Corona. So, we can see there is a trend of
bipolarization. The number of people who became unhappy is more than the people who havebecome happier but this trend can be seen in both surveys.
Figure 14 Deterioration of mental state and bipolarization (Survey 1 and 2)

Page 16 of 50

Figure 15 Changes

Number of people

Number of people

Number of people

Number of people

And Figure 15 shows the changes in the body or mental affairs and employment and income.
So, in most cases, slightly worse it is a little more than somewhat improved. So, this is in tune with
our analysis of well-being, but, the number of slight reverses is conspicuous in income change. So,
income change is more conspicuous than changes of physical or mental change and changes in
employment state. So, the increase in brightness is negatively correlated with physical and mental

Page 17 of 50

deterioration. And the increase in darkness, anxiety and depression is positively correlated withall these deteriorations.
Figure 16 shows people whose bonds with family and friends have become somewhat
stronger or little more than people whose bonds have become weaker. So, basically, people's
bonds with family and friends have little increased and the people with negative moods are
more than people with positive moods and especially anxiety and stress. So, this slide implies
that there is a noteworthy increase in people's bonds with family and friends. And obviously,
negative moods such as anxiety and stress are popular, but some people experience joy, love,and hope. And so, this is the change of relationship and feelings.

Figure 16 Changes of relationship and feelings

Number of people

Number of people

Number of people

Figure 17 Value Changes

Page 18 of 50

Number of people

Figure 17 shows value change and I have analyzed value changes based on Maslow's hierarchyof needs. So, there are obviously value changes towards post-material values and materialistic
values. The first post-material change corresponds to self-transcendence need or spirituality andthe second materialistic value corresponds to safety needs such as the economy. So, it is easy tounderstand that income anxiety causes other realistic values, but some people experience valuechange towards post-materialistic values and so, there is also bipolarization. In contrast to thesetwo, the other two needs of belonging and self-realization means are not so conspicuous. So,
increased anxiety is positively correlated with an increase in darkness, anxiety, and depression.
Value review, change in values have a positive correlation with both dark anxiety and an increasein depression. So, this signifies both changes in value systems. And next section is factors that
influence well-being and change the relationship with fairness. I have enumerated correlation insurvey 1, especially regarding well-being, economy, politics, society and community, andattributes. It is impossible to read all these so I have colored red, blue-purple, and green (Figure18).
So, we can see these factors' influences are correlated with well-being. I have a result on the same
correlations in survey 2 (Figure19). We can see all kinds of it within economy, politics, society,and culture, a community and attributes are related to the well-being, increased positivity or
negativity.
Figure 18 Correlation in Survey 1

Page 19 of 50

Figure 19 Correlation in Survey 2

Page 20 of 50

Figure 20 Well-being and four systems

Figure 20 shows that well-being has a relation with a change of feeling and it is impossible forthe limited time to go into details of this analysis. But this signifies that because of multiple
regression analyses of well-being and four systems, we can see obviously, well-being is related toPage 21 of 50

these, but politics especially fairness and justice and economy, that is income are negatively
correlated with negative direction.
Figure 21 Change by ICOPPE (Survey 1)

Figure 21 shows the result of the change by ICOPPE on survey 1. Survey 1 shows that
relationship and community organization, physical, psychological, economic, and politics, there
is some change before Corona and after Corona, as I said.
Figure 22 Multiple regression analysis concerning ICOPPE (Survey 1 and 2)

Page 22 of 50

And this is a result of multiple regression analysis concerning ICOPPE and we can also see thesame result with surveys 1 and 2 (Figure 22). The dependent variables are changes of mood, so we
can see psychological, physical well-being and interpersonal well-being are positive andcommunity and political well-being are negative. This means that political well-being is negatively
correlated with darkness. That is, if we have high political well-being, we tend to be less become
negative side. Figure 23 is survey 1 also multiple regression analysis and change of mood are
dependent variables and dependent variables are 27 factors by explorative factor analysis. Wellbeing negativity and health have influenced as imagined. Hedonia is related to the increase of
darkness, eudaimonia is related to the constraint of darkness. Community and relations and civic
publicness are related to the increase of brightness and the constraint of the increase of darkness.
These effects are more prominent than household budgets. Figure 24 is the same or similar tosurvey 2. The relationship concerning psychological well-being, negativity, and health are thesame as survey 1. Hedonia is related to brightness and darkness, fairness constraints negative
increase. Political negativity is related to a negativity increase and the conclusion is that fairness
and political well-being are inversely correlated with negativity. So, we can understand that thefairness factor is one of the factors which are related to well-being. So, I will focus on therelationship between citizenship, fairness and justice and well-being, change of mood.
Figure 23 Survey 1 Multiple regression analysis: change of mood

Figure 24 Survey 2 Multiple regression analysis: change of mood
Page 23 of 50

And Figure 25 shows the correlation between virtue-related indicators is more than thecorrelation concerning hedonic indicators. Therefore, citizenship and justice are associated with
virtues. This is quite in tune with the communitarian assumption. Also, Figure 26 is the same
analysis on the second survey, and these results are basically the same as the first survey. So,
this is also in tune with the communitarian assumption, that is the ethical element is related tojustice, citizenship, and well-being. And I also examined the correlation between justice,fairness, citizenship, and well-being (Figure 27). This correlation shows there is a substantial
relationship between justice and fairness and citizenship and subjective well-being. And so, I
analyzed the data from the communitarian model of justice, citizenship, and well-being (Figure28). Figure 29 is the result of structural equation modeling. So, we can find that this model fits
the data. And this is also a complex model.

Page 24 of 50

Figure 25 Correlation between virtue-related indicators (survey 1)

Note: 6th line and below indicate the correlations between items in the second column and factor
scores (of the factors in the first line). In most cases, p<0.001; only ※ ｐ（0.471）：nonsignificant.
Figure 26 Correlation between virtue-related indicators (survey 2)

Note: 7th line and below indicate the correlations between items in the second column and factor
scores (of the factors in the first line). In all cases, p<0.001. The place of underbar corresponds tothe exceptional case.

Page 25 of 50

Figure 27 Correlations between justice/fairness or Citizenship and WB (or political WB)

Figure 28 Communitarian (Republican) Model of Justice, Citizenship and Well-being

Page 26 of 50

Figure 29 Structural Equation Modeling

Figure 30 Correlations between justice/fairness or citizenship and change of mood (brightness
and darkness)

Page 27 of 50

Figure 31 Correlations between justice/fairness or citizenship and change of mood (brightness
and darkness)

And Figure 30 shows the correlation between justice, fairness, citizenship, and change ofmood. As I said, there is a substantial correlation between justice, fairness, citizenship, andsubjective well-being, but also their relationship between justice and fairness or political liberty
or citizenship and brightness increased, the darkness increased, anxiety increased, depression
increased. And I also made the same allowances by using the explorative factor analysis (Figure31). The result is basically the same. There are some correlations between justice, fairness, andcitizenship and brightness increase, darkness increase, anxiety increase, depression increase.
So, this is the conclusion. It is a bit too quick a presentation of the data, but I summarize theconclusion from the analysis before. First, well-being declines, and there is a bipolarization.
Well-being generally declined slightly due to Corona calamity including the general domainsof well-being hedonic, eudaimonia orientation. In particular, increase overall anxiety, which is
not limited to Corona problems, but worry and stress are consistent. This is consistent with
reports of an increase in depression and suicide. Deterioration of mental states, that is negative
feelings, anxiety and depression, and bipolarization that is an increase in positive feelings exists.
Bipolarization is unexpected and new findings. And the deterioration of body, mind,
employment situation, and income, especially income and income anxiety is contiguous.

Page 28 of 50

Remote work and online have improved, but the rewarding sense has declined. Assets, income
living expenses, burden, housing, employment stability, and support for the ruling party havedeclined. The bonds between family and friends have improved slightly and they are related toincreased brightness and decreased darkness. The importance of the home is noteworthy. Is thisincrease of friend bonding an online effect? Mentally, whether positive or negative, the change
leads to a change in values. The number of poles of materialistic orientation and postmaterialism
tends to increase. This is also noteworthy.
And the correlation between citizenship and justice and polarization of positive and negativechange of mood under Corona calamity is small but robust. Because even if we conduct themultiple regression analysis, we can see these influences. So, the effects of political involvement
and the sense that fairness and justice exist in politics and society may curb despair and depression
due to coronal calamity and increase positive feelings. And concerning light-darkening factors, we
can see the significance of civil publicness and fairness. The increase in brightness, darkness,anxiety, and extinction is related to politics, especially fairness and economy is basically income
as well as well-being and also a little related to culture. In terms of attributes, women and elderly
people are more related to increased darkness than men and younger people. The psychologicaland interpersonal well-being has improved slightly, but political and economic well-being havedarkened.
The goodness of physical and mental well-being is related to the brightness increase and thedark constraint, but the goodness of the interpersonal well-being is related to darkness increase.
The goodness of political, economic, and community well-being is related to the constraint of
darkness increase. In particular, the relationship concerning political well-being is remarkable. In
survey 1, the relationship between well-being, negativity, and health is as imagined. Eudaimonia,
community relations, and civil publicness are related to the constraint of negativity increase.
Eudaimonia and civil publicness are also related to positivity increase. And justice, fairness, andchange of mood. Civil publicness justice, fairness is related to the increase of well-being and also
to the constraint of negativity increase in coronal calamity. Focusing on justice, fairness, andcitizenship, correlations between these and the positive and negative change of mood under Corona
calamity are small but robust. Therefore, justice and citizenship are related to high well-being andalso to the increase of positive mood and constraint of negative mood in Corona calamity. In sum,justice and fairness may contribute to the well-being and positive or less negative change of mood.

Page 29 of 50

I think this is quite in tune with communitarian republicanism. So communitarian republicanism
may enable people to increase well-being and cope with Corona calamity more positively or lessnegatively.
Section 3 (lectures by Mr. Afsana Begum)
Thank you for having me here. Let's talk about the problem first, that in the pandemic
situation, all the pandemic situations, both men and women affect differently. So, it's not only
women, but it affects men as well. But recently what happened like in the pandemic, we allwere inside the home during the lockdown. So, what do we think what we believe that home is
our shelter. So, whenever we are at home, we are safe, but the Covid-19 situation was different
for women. So home was not the safest place for women at that time. They were staying at
home and they were facing different kinds of violence. So, it's not about only the domestic
violence, it has economic violence, it has like they couldn't raise their voices and a lot of things
happened. They had a divorce. The divorce rate increased. They lost their jobs and these kindsof problems happened. It has several reasons. For example, the home was crowded, that was a
problem, and substance abuse and limited access to services and reduced peer support. Because
whenever women and all crowded family members were there, they were not having peer
support from the others, other men members, male members in the society. And that's why
when the pandemic happened, women became more vulnerable and more struggling people.
And it's not about only the Covid-19, all the pandemic situation, what happened before, it was
the same. And we can say about the Ebola strike as well. It happened the same thing in the
Ebola virus as well. So that was the problem and this problem scenario. And let's talk about theobjective like, what we tried to find out in this research in this paper. So firstly, we tried to
explore the heterogeneity of the gender disparity during Covid-19 and to analyze the violence
cases from all over the world. Here I just wrote all over the world but as I told you that it's verysmall scale research. So, I tried to include different countries with the secondary sources of data.
And also, I interviewed some of the women from different parts of the world to know what ishappening in the world during this Covid-19 with women. And also, I critically tried to
overview the SDGs gender in Covid-19, because SDGs covered 17 important issues in oursociety and we have a target until 2030. So, what happened with these ideas of 2030 SDGs, andPage 30 of 50

what are the major effect impacting on the SDGs due to Covid-19 and gender. And then finally, I
tried to prospect the fair society concept in the current situation of Covid-19 and gender. So, that's
all about the objectives. So, let's talk about some pilot study analysis. So, as I told that, it's not only
a secondary data source, so I tried to interview like in-depth interview process I followed. So, I
interviewed some of the women from France, India, Bangladesh, and Japan. So, I'm from
Bangladesh, I forgot to mention, and that's why I found some Bangladeshi women who are sharing
their problems of home and outside offices with me. And also, from them, I found some more
Indian friends and Japanese women using the snowball research process.
So, before interviewing them, I got to know their problem and then I prepared a small
questionnaire and then talked with them using the interview method, and then I tried to analyze
with some social and feminist theories. So, after doing the interviews, and after doing that research,
I understand that there is an urgent need to adopt gender lenses to study epidemics. Because
whenever we talk about epidemics, we always think of the economy, that our country's economy
is going down. We have to think about more money, we have to think about our GDP and thesekinds of problems, but no one thinks about gender, which is also the most important factor insociety. So, it's not only that if our GDP is going down and our global partnership is not working
very well, then our country will be in a worse situation. It's not always that, like if women are notin a good situation, good position, women don't have good policies and measures to improve
themselves, then the country or the society, the global society will also hamper. So this is aboutpiloting. So, let's talk about the analysis of the findings that I have found when I was doing thesecondary data source analysis and the interviews.
So, first of all, I find that violence against women during Corona affected both developed andpoor countries. So, it started in China and now it's everywhere. So, it's not that like it affects
developing countries like Bangladesh like Sri Lanka like India not at all it has. It has a lot of impact
on developed countries as well like USA, Canada, or Australia or in Japan, lots of things happened
also. And the rate of violence against women in China, Australia, Brazil, England, and the US
increased in 2020 March alarmingly compared to March 2019. So United Nations always makerecords, of how much violence be caused every year. So, what we see in this recent year in thisPage 31 of 50

one year, the rate has increased very highly. And that's also a problem and not only women,child abuse has also been increased. So, women are in the family and children are also in thefamily.
So, during the pandemic, what happened, all the children were staying at home because theirschools are also closed. And in Japan, the children who are below six years old, they used to go
to the daycare, what here in Japan, they call hoikuen. These things were also closed. So, all theburden came up to the women in the family. And also, when little girls and the little children
were staying at the home, they were being abused by the member of the family. Because when
we talk about child abuse, the perverse always come from relatives or close members of thefamily. So, this thing also happened in the Covid-19 situation. And suicide rate increased thatis also because of sexual and psychological harassment. So, the suicide rate is not only for
women, the suicide rate increased in the case of men as well, because they were losing theirjobs. So, some people don't have their jobs, they don't have food to eat, they're losing theirsocial status and that's why they committed suicide. But what happened to the women? So, they
were psychologically harassed, they were physically harassed, they were being tortured fordowry. So, in countries like India, Bangladesh, the dowry system it's a very weird system thatwhen a woman is getting married, she has to bring lots of money, lots of furniture, lots of gold
to her in-laws, and in Covid situation, they couldn't do that. And that's why the in-laws were
doing some psychological and sexual harassment with them. And that's why a lot of suicide
cases we found in that South Asian countries. And women are obviously taking the triple burden.
They have the burden of the family, some women were doing part-time jobs in Japan and othercountries. So, they were losing those kinds of jobs because, in the Covid, no people were goingoutside. Lots of offices, like the very formal sector offices, were asking only 30 or 40% workers
in the office. That's why they are cutting off the females. So, when they are cutting off thefemales, they got the burden of the economy, they don't have jobs and they are not getting
money. And these are the triple and also they have the household chores burden whereas in thelast one the masculinity crisis increased. So, what happened in the family? So, we can say thatit's kind of the French Philosopher, Michel Foucault's theory, we can work here the Docile Body.
So, women's bodies became the Docile body at that time. So, the punishment was not always
torture, it transferred from the body to the soul, what Michel Foucault said in the Docile body

Page 32 of 50

theory, and when they were always being in the home, the panopticism also happened the internalsurveillance. So, they were all the time they were checking out that what they are doing, theiractivities were judged always. So, they are being judgmental always the men. So, they are doing
that. Women, she is not doing the work properly. She is not educating her children properly. She
is not doing the home works properly. These were judged by the men, but the men on the otherside, were not sharing the household chores with the women in the family and that's the masculine
crisis. That's masculinity. So the men were acting as powerful men in the home. But whenever theother men were doing, sharing some household chores with the family and that time the positive
male felt the crisis in the home. So, this was a very vice versa situation that happened in the family
in the masculinity crisis thing.
Figure 32 Violence situation

And then we can see the simple demographics that what happened in the violence (Figure 32).
So, this is a United Nations demographic, and they showed that domestic violence how it's goingon like was less than 40% of a woman who experienced violence reported these crimes or sought
help. So, this is the situation and now since the lockdown happened, you can see that in Cyprus,
Argentina, France, even in Singapore, what do we see that Singapore, they're always doing great,
they're very confident, and they're saturating the power in the society. But what happened 33%
violence rate increased and in Cyprus 30%, France 30%, and Argentina 25% increased. It is one
example of domestic violence. More things happened in the field of migration, in the field of
economy, in the field of health service, and the field of education, and are everywhere the situation
is women are being psychologically or socially harassed. And then we can see some statistics,
these are all the secondary sources data, like 70% of global healthcare workers are female. In

Page 33 of 50

China, 90% of health service workers are women. So, what happened when 90% of a big
number of health workers are women, they are closer to the disease. So, when they are taking
care of the Covid-19 patients, they're also at risk of having Covid-19 disease. So, 70% in the
total world, it's a huge number. That's why in the Covid-19 situation, our big number or a major
number of nurses, the global health care service workers, the female workers, died due to Covid19. And most of the doctors who were male were not the frontline actors. They were working
from the back because the front-liners were mostly women. So, from the back of what they are
doing, they were taking care of the patients online. So, they're not going to the hospital directly.
So, all the tests and all the major taking care were given by the female healthcare workers.
That's why men were in the safest situation and women became in a vulnerable position in thehealthcare workers system. And then we can see that 76% new cases of divorces. So, it's awhole world. So, why this number is very high? Because at that time it was lock-down, both
men and women were sharing the same boundaries, same world for 24/7. So, when 24/7, they
were together, they had many issues, issues of, for example, one example I found while I wasdoing an interview, so one divorce case happened because two of the person like men andwomen were working outside.
So, it's a case in Japan but the persons were not Japanese. Both were migrants, and they were
working in two different companies. And during Covid-19, the male member of their family
lost his job. And the female member was still working in that company. Because that was aFrance company, an international company, and they were not cutting off the women workers.
And then when the male member lost his job and the female members were earning money forher family, so male member the masculinity crisis raised in his mind that I'm working I'm in thefamily and I'm having food with my wife's money. And that's the crisis, and because of thiskind of crisis, they got a divorce, and not only for the masculinity crisis, also a lot of torture on
women, sexual harassment on women, even the marital rape happened. These are the reason
behind the new cases of divorce. And next, we can see that 743 million girls dropped out ofschool. So, firstly, when the pandemic started, soon after it started, all the schools in the world
were closed. When the school started in different parts of the world, for example, Japan, after
six months, all the schools were opened, they were doing face-to-face classes. Also, for example,
in Bangladesh, it was still in some cases online, not face-to-face classes. But when the school
started, either online or face to face, the number of girls students dropping out was high. So,

Page 34 of 50

they are staying at home or doing other work, they are not continuing their school anymore after
the pandemic. There are also several reasons behind that because most of the cases were frompoor families. They don't have enough food, they don't have enough work. That's why they are notable to pay for their education. Though education is a basic need. but in a lot of countries, the thingthat if we don't have food, if we don't have work, if we don't have money, then education is not
our basic need. That's why a lot of girls were dropped out of school. And then 25 million migrant
women lost their job. So, I'm in Japan, I'm also a migrant woman and, there are lots of migrant
women I know who are working in Japan but lost their job because they're not doing formal jobs.
So, in this situation, when they lose their jobs, they cannot go to their own country, and they cannot
even survive here. So, in some cases, either they are not having correct visas, they are having
refugee visas, or their visa status changed, they become homeless, or in some cases, they commit
suicide. And, 180 million women became unemployed and the reason behind it is when the
pandemic started, all very formal or the high-class officers, they were asking only 40% of workers
in the office. That's why they decided to cut off the women workers. So, the 40% of workers who
were working in the office, all were male, and the female workers were cut off from their jobs
because they have problems, they have issues with their child in the family, they have pregnancy
issues, they have other issues. They have issues with even every month, even in Japan there is alaw that women can get paid leave every month for their menstruation sickness, but only 0.9% of
women take this. Because if they take that leave in the next month, maybe their office will do that
docility with them, and they will punish them with cutting off their jobs. And 810 women diedevery day, during their childbirth. Why do these things increase in Covid-19? Because in theCovid-19, in some countries, the hospitals were only taking care of the pandemic patients, theCovid-19 patients. So, they are not taking care of any pregnant women, any women who just gavebirth to a child. That's why due to less care, 810 women died every day during childbirth in the
pandemic.
And next to these are some quotations from my respondence, which I got when I was talking
with them about this issue. So, the first one is from Jharkhand and India. She said that we did nothave food at home. We are three sisters and two brothers. My father is drunk always. And due tothe pandemic, my mother lost her household job. And so, my father forcefully sent me and my twosisters to the sex worker brokers. So, in this case, what happened as the father, he is not responsible

Page 35 of 50

for his family and he's not taking responsibility. The mother of this family, the female of thisfamily, was working the household jobs. So, due to the pandemic, India has a very serious
situation. That's why the household workers the maid was not able to work in those homes
because all of them were in the lockdown situation. So, when they lost their jobs, the father did
not do anything with his sons, because they are the son, they cannot do anything. They have
only some works to do outside. But what happened with the sisters with the person I was talking
with, three of them were taken away to the sex worker brokers because women's body is always
judged. So, women cannot do anything, but a woman's body can do a lot. So, whenever wethink about gender, whenever we think about sex, we talk about women's bodies. So, we thinkthat women's body is not a subject when we think of women as an object that's why it happened
like this problem happened that they became sex workers after the pandemic.
And next one is from Grenoble, France, and this case is not from a very poor family. It's avery higher-class family from France. And she said that my husband is working in the Atomic
Energy Commission of France. And since the corona broke out, he's working from home. In alockdown, he became violent to me, and his masculine behavior became more prominent. And
she also mentioned that 32% of domestic violence increased during these days. So, we cancompare these two situations what happened with the Indian case and what happened in theFrance case. So, both are it's like what poor families when there is no money, then what
happened, they became sex workers, and when there is money, they have everything, still, they
have the sexual violence, they have the masculinity problem because when the husband is athome, he seems that he is the husband, and he has the most powerful attributes. And what hesays, the female has to do and that's why the problem aroused, that's why he thinks that hepresumed that I can do anything with my wife. And because of this problem, 32% of domestic
violence increased during these days in France.
And the next case is from my country, Bangladesh, Dhaka. And she said that I cannot evengo to the hospital for treatment after being tortured at home, as hospitals are not taking any
cases except Covid. So, this is the worst situation even like, they were being tortured, and they
were not able to say to anyone. They were not able to go to the hospital, she also mentioned thepolice. So, they said that not even the police were taking the cases of sexual harassment because

Page 36 of 50

whenever police take a sexual harassment case or domestic violence case, they are bound to send
the girl, the victim to the hospital. So that situation, the police stations, were not able to send thevictim to the hospital. That's why they were not even taking the cases. So, the domestic violence
cases, in a sense, were increasing, but it was not filed, and they were not getting the proper
treatment as well.
There are two more cases. One is from Japan, Yokohama, and another one is from Kolkata.
The Japan one is -- I work in a well renowned Japanese company. And during Covid, my officeallowed 40% workers in the office, and 60% were doing home office with less payment. So, I wasamong that 60% as I'm a woman and don't have a voice. So, this Yokohama woman is also from avery high-class family, higher class society and she also struggled a lot to get that job. And she
said that she is the only manager in her arena. She's the only manager but she was almost fired
during that pandemic situation because they said that you will get less paid like you will get only
50% payment and then you have to work from the home, and being a woman, she couldn't say
anything and her voices were not counted. And the Kolkata case from India, like she said that I'm
only 16 years old, according to the law of my country, I'm underage to get married. But my parents
bound me to get married to get rid of the burden due to the pandemic. Also, my in-laws are notrich enough. So, now they are torturing me for dowry. So being a Hindu woman, I cannot even ask
for a divorce. In the Hindu religion, marriage registration is not mandatory. That's why in most of
the cases, they cannot even ask for marriage and this thing happened in India the law was not doing
anything with it. So, she was only 16 years old. She got married, and it's a child marriage case also,
and it's a dowry case and it's a torturing case, so three cases happened because of the COVID-19
pandemic because those girls are the burden in the family in the pandemic. She cannot earn andshe's eating. That's why she's a burden and that's why she got married. And also in the other case,the in-laws are torturing for the dowry. So that's the thing. So these are all about the cases and let'stalk about the SDGs now. We know that SDGs have a goal until 2030, but how this goal willmeasure its increasing rate as the COVID-19 situation has lots of facts that are the reason for notgetting the higher results in SDGs. So, I have tried to include some of the SDGs' results. For
example, numbers 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
So, the number one is the no-poverty. So in the no-poverty, we can see that 193 million girls
started to live no less than $1.9 a day. So all these data are after or during the COVID-19 and SDGs

Page 37 of 50

number three is good health and well-being and 810 women died from pregnancy and childbirthrelated problems, so that I explained before that in this good health and well-being situation, what's
happening with a woman in SDGs 3. So, whenever, these days in the pandemic, we talk about
SDGs, the global SDG. We are talking about vague or very blurry SDGs that only concern men.
So, we think that there are 17 goals 16 are related to men, and only one the gender equality isrelated to women. So, if we think like that, nothing will happen after 2030. It will be the same
because if we exclude women, half of the percentage of the world who are men, they cannot doalone anything. So that is happening here. SDGs 4 is the quality education, like 743 million girls
have dropped out that I also explained before and of course, in the gender equality, the SDGs 5,
750 million sexual harassment and gender violence cases and 12 million girls married before theage of 18. So, if these types of huge numbers are happening within this one year, then how can wemeasure the increased rate of SDGs within 2030 within these 15 years?
And then the last one I tried to spotlight is the SDGs 6 on clean water and sanitation, like 300
million women and girls have lack menstrual hygiene management. So, during this COVID-19
situation, in some countries, only the COVID-19 patients and some emergency and frontline actors
were allowed to go outside. That's why a lot of women were not going outside to buy their sanitarynapkins as well. That's why what happened, they were using very old methods of menstruation
management, which were not hygienic. So, because of this, also the SDGs 6, the clean water andsanitation were not working properly in this one year. So, in this one the year 2019 to 2021 in thisperiod of the pandemic, this kind of problem happened in the SDGs situation like within thewomen's boundary, not only the global boundary, only the women's boundary, these problems
happened. Here there is the fact that the burden of responding to the immediate and long-term
impacts of pandemic also threatens women's involvement in politics in the long term. So, women's
involvement in politics is still very low.
If we talk about my country, we can see it's visible that our prime minister, our speaker of theparliament, the opposition party, all of them are women, but how far are they working by
themselves? And during the pandemic, what happened? Lots of women politicians who were
working before left politics. They say that politics is a philosophy. So when we talk about
philosophy, it's for the higher class people. So when we have food, we can talk about philosophy.
When we don't have food, we cannot talk about philosophy, economics, and politics. That's why
it's a burden that in the long run, if the pandemic happens, and we don't concern, we don't spotlight,

Page 38 of 50

we don't zoom in the situation of women in the society, then the involvement of women will also
become very less in the politics and then what happens, we will not get the policies and themeasurements which will bring the good things for the women, which if all the legislators are men,then the laws will also come in the favor of men, not in the favor of women.
And to talk about the fair society, like when we say something fair, if the society fair, it's acomplex structure. It's not only women, not only men, not only politics and not only economy, but
it's also a total thing like society is a complex structure, including all its institutions, institutions as
in it's a religion, the religion is included, the society is included, family is included, education is
included and industrialization, everything is included, which starts from the family. So, if we say
about the fair society, we must talk about Judith Butler's performativity because, in the pandemic,
all the family members are in the house, so performativity here works. The little children, what
they think, what they see, will perform accordingly. So, in this pandemic, if the man in his family,
is not acting as a positive masculine in the family, then the children will not follow the positivity,
then the patriarchy will sustain and we will never find a fair society because if we exclude genderfrom the fair society, we cannot get a proper fair society. Without gender, without women, oursociety cannot be fair, and pandemic creates a crisis in migrants and masculinity which in the longrun, leads to vulnerability towards women and also the COVID-19 is a symbolic image that shows
how pandemics create risk on women's lives. So, it's a symbol that it's happening from the birth of
the society, but COVID-19 shows as a symbolic image like it show how it creates risk in many
parts of the societies. It's in the family, it's in the religious institution, it's in the society, it's in theoffice, it's in the working environment, it's in the education, it's everywhere.
And finally, I want to say that to establish a fair society, the gender-fair language. The genderfair language includes everything wherefrom the language also when we talk about anything, forexample, it's a simple thing. If we say camera person, we don't say camera person, it's thecameraman. So, always we are excluding the gender-fair language, we are excluding women fromeverywhere. So, if we exclude women from everywhere, we cannot have a fair society. So, to havea fair society, gender-fair language, is very important. It demolishes the gender stereotype anddiscrimination and finally, for the closing remarks, it's very simple that I want to say that insteadof focusing entirely on stopping the pandemic, the public service community needs to ensure theexisting health and social services for women to maintain their unique needs. Like I said lots ofPage 39 of 50

women are leaving their job, they're fired out from their job because they didn't have a daycare in
the offices. That's why they cannot take their children to the office, and they cannot get tensionfree while they are working. So, this kind of thing happens. When a pandemic happens, we should
also think about, who are the catalysts in society, who are the actors in society. If we think about
only how to stop the pandemic, how to make vaccines, how to get all the vaccines to the people ofthe society, it will stop one kind of problem, but another kind of problem will arise in the society.
That is the gender problem, that is the social problem and if we want to think about those problems,
we have to think about more public service communities, more services from the government,
more services from everywhere, so that women also can survive nicely in the parallel basis of men
in the society even if there is a pandemic or epidemic. Thank you very much for this. I hope you
enjoyed the presentation.
Section 4 Panel discussion
Jiro Mizushima:
Thank you for the three speakers. That would be better I think, and about the lecture of Professor
Lindsay, it was quite interesting to know the development of the COVID-19 and the policy
reactions in Australia and it was quite interesting to know the difference between the politicalbackground of the states and its impact on the policy and the infection situations and I would liketo know about the reasons of the difference between the states, blue states, and red states because
as you explained in the progressive states, the number of infections were relatively high and in theconservative states, it was safer, but it seems somewhat strange to me that in general, conservatives
they don't like restrictions, and in conservative countries, the infections might be larger thanprogressive countries because progressive politicians like to tighten or they like restrictions on the
behavior of ordinary people and then it might be natural that the infections would decrease. For
example, in the United States or Brazil, the conservative governments under Trump and Bolsonaro
saw a rapid expansion of COVID-19 because conservative leaders, don't like science, they don't
like restrictions. They like prosperous economies, so they don't introduce lockdowns, but thesituation in Australia seems the opposite. So, why is it, I would like to know the background ofthese differences?

Page 40 of 50

And next lecturer, Professor Kobayashi, Professor Kobayashi explained the relationshipbetween well-being and especially about justice and fairness and it was quite a unique research
Professor Kobayashi explained about there are only but a few positive elements, positive aspects
because we saw some increasing bonds with family and friends among the people. So, it mightmean that under pandemic, people discovered the value of bonds with family and friends, but it isinteresting that it is natural that under the stay home, we talk much with our family members, andwe discovered the bonds with family, but about friends, in general, we see fewer friends last year
and this year, but according to the survey, people discovered the value of bonds with friends. So,
it seems somewhat strange to me. What do you think about the reason behind these bonds withfriends? And about post-materialist value, it is also quite exciting to see because of the pandemic,
people discovered the value of post materials in this situation, so they prefer more spiritual aspectsof life than money. So, it might seem a positive change of minds of people and Professor
Kobayashi, do you think after the pandemic, this change would be reversed or this change would
endure, namely the turn to post-materialistic value? I'm eager to know the development of people
in their attitude.
And about the lecture of Afsana, thank you very much and you explained quite clearly about
the disparity between gender under the pandemic and as you clearly explained the disparity or thedisproportionate burden of women, that varies not only in the economic aspect, but also mental
and social and other physical aspects. So, as you explained, the SDGs, the objectives of SDGs
themselves are not enough for us to understand the situation of women under the pandemic. I agree
and your metaphor about panopticon is unique and interesting to me, and I think that there emerges
double panopticon system, it means under the remote work system, many white-collar workers
work from home, and it seems we get freedom because while hearing the voices from my PC, I
can do other things. However, many companies introduced a system to control the workers at home,so they can control whether the workers at home are truly doing their jobs. So, it seems that we
see a modern panopticon system. So, the companies at the headquarters cannot control every
worker during the working time, but we have to see that these workers are mostly males, they'recontrolled by panopticon system from headquarter, but these male workers dominate women at
home. So, it's a so-called double panopticon system. So, they control from the headquarters themale workers, and the male workers control women at their home. So we see the emergence ofPage 41 of 50

these double-edged panopticon systems and we have to elaborate more about it and you explained
various kinds of negative aspects of gender disparity, but as a political scientist, I see some brightaspects about gender because last year and this year, we see a couple of quite excellent female
political leaders in the world, German Prime Minister Merkel, the Prime Minister of New ZealandArden, and the political leader of Taiwan Tsai, they're all female leaders and we see clearly thatthey follow the advice of science and they are quite calm and self-restrained, and they can talk aquite clear message to the public other than Trump or Bolsonaro or other male leaders who don't
like science. So, I can interpret it as a positive change about females and politics. So, this itself isa great achievement, I think. What do you think about the political aspects?
Hikari Ishido:
Thank you so much, Professor Mizushima. So, for the sake of our time, let us move on to thesecond panelist speaker, Dr. Kawase. He has his presentation titled "Justice in an emergency" andhe will also make some comments on the three lectures. Thank you so much. Dr. Kawase, please.
Takayuki Kawase:Thank you very much. I research issues such as what is justice or what is fairness, how should
we think about the value, and so on. And today, I would like to try to apply these questions to thecase of emergency of COVID-19. In the last year and a half, almost all people in the world were
upset and some of them panicked and despaired. However, I think it is exactly now that philosophy
can show its true value because, in an emergency, we cannot use our existing common sense.
Emergency reveals the essence of so many kinds of problems, such as the hidden nature of persons
or dirty aspects of societies. I think it is the responsibility of philosophy to confront such problems.
My presentations consist of three parts and after that, I like to make some comments or questions
to the main presentation of three professors and doctors. The first of my point is about risk
assessment. In the last year and a half, we have had so many controversies about the risk of viruses
and vaccines, and so on. In my opinion, not only risk assessments but also all human behaviors ofassessments are plural sort of things. So, it's plural. By plurality, I mean human actions ofassessments are not objective, but subjective or sometimes inter-subjective. It is individuals orgroups that assess some risks. There is no objective risk, which is transcended or independent fromany kind of individuals or group. So, there are different correct opinions about risks. This is quite

Page 42 of 50

natural in liberal societies, but on the other hand, such plurality brings about social divisions andsegmentations. In such cases, people do not listen to other opinions. So, some of them do not listen.
For example, vaccine conspiracy theory is one good example in my opinion. What is the reason
for this tendency? One reason might be that people exchange their opinions only inside of thesame-minded groups and make their opinions more and more radical. Another reason might bethat people who have feelings of being alienated from society take a closed mind. There is a vicious
circle of segmentation. It is a very serious problem in my opinion and my second topic is about
the rule of law. In the last years, so many Japanese people criticized the Japanese government that
why not our government takes strong measures of regulation, for example, against pachinko
parlors or such kind of that. And many of these claimants did not understand that governments
cannot take any actions without legal permission. Some of the better arguments claimed that andgovernment should take extrajudicial measures in an emergency despite understanding theimportance of the rule of law.
The second argument is worth rejecting, so worth objecting and this is a formidable argument,
I think. In an emergency, it is natural that people want consequentialist ideas rather thandeontological ideas because in many cases, consequentialism is more flexible than deontology. I
agree with this opinion. However, in an emergency, people tend to see very short-sighted
consequences. I consider we should think from a longer-term perspective, so a long-term
perspective. We should remember that our behaviors are assessed by those who are in the far past,and those who will be in the far future. This is my own careful and conservative standpoint. If we
adopt long-term consequentialism, I speculate that the consequence of respecting the rule of law
even in an emergency is much better than ignoring the value of the rule of law. We should notsacrifice long-term interests to get short-term profits, but all of this is a matter of fact. So, we
cannot say my speculation is correct or not in advance. Everything is assessable only
retrospectively. My third and last point is about corrective decision-making. Many Japanese people
insist that the Japanese government is opportunistic and takes only ad hoc measures without any
definite strategies. However, I think public policies can be implemented only in the piecemeal andgradual method of trial and modifications. We cannot recognize any best answers in advance,
thinking a priori best answers existing and recognizable and achievable is utopianism in myopinion. I think this idea, this utopianism might be very dangerous because radical idealism canPage 43 of 50

bring about catastrophic results. If people cannot stand with that socially shared and fixed answers,
they are not autonomous nor independent because they are just waiting for someone else, forexample, the government giving some answers to them, so people should find their answers bythemselves, and they should admit these answers may be different from others. So it is the plurality.
If individuals have mental weakness, their society must be weak, in my opinion. So, ourgovernment is very indecisive, but it is because we are indecisive and dependent and I think thisis all – so basically, I am an optimistic person, but my today's arguments maybe a little bit
pessimistic. I hope this world is better than I expect, but now, let me go on to my comments orquestions to three main presentations.
My first question is to Professor Oades and I think Australian and New Zealander ways ofhandling pandemics are outstanding and I respect them. My questions are about the difference inthe strategies on pandemics between the United States or the United Kingdom and Australia or
New Zealand. The first group of countries looks very pro-freedom, and the second group looks
pro-security. It might not be very accurate, but anyway, and originally these four countries share
the traditions of Anglo-American individualism and liberalism; however, why did such differences
come out? What would philosophers of consequentialism such as Friedrich Hayek say? Would
they support being skeptical about the government's ability to handle pandemics and keeping thefreedom of individuals or would they admit to restricting personal liberties to improve social
consequences? Which strategy is also the successor of the Anglo-American tradition or history ofliberalism? So, these are my questions to Professor Oades.
And next is my comment and questions to Professor Kobayashi. Professor Kobayashi adopts
an evidence-based method. This is very different from my method, which is very abstract andmetaphysical, and I am very impressed very much and my question is, how far is it possible torecognize human happiness or human well-being by questionnaire survey? If happiness is definedas subjective senses, a questionnaire survey is a very good way to get evidence about respondents'
happiness or well-being. However, there are other ways of defining human happiness or wellbeing. For example, consider a famous example of an experience machine. This person feels happy,
but most of us may think this is an illusion or fake happiness. If so, does not a questionnaire survey

Page 44 of 50

on him give us any evidence about his happiness or well-being? So this is my question to Professor
Kobayashi.
And the last question to Ms. Afsana. I think gender issues are deeply related to almost all social
problems these days. Of course, it has huge implications for the pandemic. Other than genderissues, there are a lot of interesting data on the correlations between many social characteristics
and attitudes about the virus or vaccines, especially the risk of side effects of vaccines. A good
example is age. Elderly persons are positive about vaccines. The reason may be very easy. The
more elderly persons are, the more vulnerable to the virus they are and the more insensitive to thelong-term side effects of vaccines they are. On the other hand, income may be a more complex
issue low-income persons are negative about vaccines. This needs a more detailed explanation, I
think, but now the topic is gender. Are there any differences in attitude to virus or the COVID
virus or vaccines, especially vaccines, according to genders? Genders are socially constructed
kinds of things. If so, what kind of social reasons or social structures bring about the difference
between genders? Probably you already showed a lot of things in your presentations, but it would
be great if you tell me something more about your opinions. As you say, I think the burden ofbabysitting or raising children may be one of the answers.
Lindsay Oades:
Thank you very much for the comments and the questions. My first response regarding thecomments was that perhaps what was happening in Australia seemed unusual in that it was thewrong way around. The conservative states were not having outbreaks of COVID or I should say
the conservative state, perhaps we will focus on New South Wales and Victoria because that's the
majority of where the plaque has been illustrated. So New South Wales is a conservative state, in
2020 did not have the outbreaks, whereas the progressive state Victoria did have the outbreaks andthat is unusual based on probably world experiences as was illustrated and I think that's what's
made it so interesting because the federal conservative government exploited that very much so
and was making fun of or criticizing the Victorian progressive government and saying that theirlockdowns were not necessary, and they'd poorly managed everything. However, that changed
very much and that was the first strain of the virus and that was pre-vaccination in 2020. In 2021,
as I outlined, we had very slow vaccination uptakes and we had the Delta virus which came andPage 45 of 50

that did affect New South Wales, the conservative state first, and then Victoria, the progressive
state it affected also, and they both went into restrictions and lockdowns as well as the vaccinations
were coming. So, the attitudes as outlined as expected by the conservative, promoting individual
liberty and pro-business, were very prominent, as were the public health initiatives by the
progressive government. So it sort of returned to normal in 2021 as would be expected by social
science in that area, and I think that's what's made it so interesting is it's seeing those real social
phenomena play out and now that the vaccination rates are getting much higher and they're
approaching 80% or they're over 80% in New South Wales, and they're approaching 80% in
Victoria, a lot of it's becoming a moot point, but in the earlier months prior, it was a fantastic
illustration of the political ideologies, and the interaction with politics, economics, and publichealth.
My second answer to the second set of questions about the United Kingdom, USA, Australia,
and New Zealand, obviously, with their liberal individual backgrounds, I would agree there areaspects of management of the pandemic that has been excellent in Australia and New Zealand.
Probably, the major problem was the delay in the purchase of vaccinations, which created a lot offrustration, which led to the state governments using lockdowns and restrictions as to their major
tool and so the debate, as was mentioned, has been very strong. It's been liberal individualism andpro-business versus public health and the use of restrictions for public health measures. The
comment about how Australia and New Zealand is perhaps different, yes, Australia very much
obviously had liberal individualism as its beginnings, but in the middle half of last century, we'revery much a social democracy and probably it's a liberal individualist nation, but it's been overlaid
with some very strong public policy about public health. So, it's kind of got both strong publichealth attitudes of the average Australian but underpinned by a liberal individual as democracy
and legal structure and because it's been geographically illustrated, and I guess that's what I wastrying to illustrate of the New South Wales versus Victoria debate, it's been illustrating exactly
those issues. So I would agree with the question. I do believe Australia has managed it overallvery well. Yes, it has its liberal individual origins, but it has been overlaid by strong public healthand public policy frame. HIV AIDS was probably a good illustration. We had some excellent
policy on that when it first came. So that probably that's my answer in terms of sort ofunderstanding the seeming contradictions.

Page 46 of 50

Masaya Kobayashi:
Thank you very much for your very important questions and first, in response to Professor
Mizushima, as for the value of family and friends, I think that your opinion is similar to mine. I
can easily interpret the increase of family bonds evaluation, but I'm a bit puzzled by the friends'
bonds. The first thing precondition is that this is done by online meet because it is difficult for us
to meet directly with friends, but this situation enables us to see the importance of friends or
acquaintances and so using the method online, we can reevaluate the importance of friends. Thisis my first interpretation. The second interpretation is that, as I said, there can be value change invarious people. So, the value change towards evaluating the importance of spiritual or mental value
tends to enable us to see the importance of friends as well as family. This is my tentativeinterpretation. As for the second question, and I think that value change, it was a bipolar change
towards material and post-materials is very important and noteworthy because this reminds me of
Ronald Inglehart’s works on post-materialism. He discovered that after the Second World War,the value system turned towards the materialistic, but 20 or 30 years, that is the 1960s and 1970s,
younger people turned towards post-materialistic value, but we find that at present, they are bipolar,that means towards materialism and post-materialism. So it is important to see if it subsequentdevelopment after the Corona. I guess that we cannot return to society before Corona. So thatmeans that perhaps some people have materialistic value as a result of the happiness by COVID19, but the other persons tend towards a more post-materialistic value orientation. So, my guess isthat's the bipolar development would develop or would continue after Corona, but I'm sure. So, I
would like to examine the trends after the Corona and my answer to Professor Kawase is this, as I
studied political philosophy as well as you, so my main interest is an obvious philosophicalquestion that I try to bridge philosophy and science. This is my new attempt. So, your question isvery hit the mark because I think that the relationship between objective and subjective is perhaps
one of the most important issues for us and Professor Ishido is very interested in exploring these
two sides including the objective side, not only happiness but also justice and citizenship I can see
are two aspects of objective and subjective. Now presentation today only focuses on the subjectiveside. This is a new frontier, I think. So, I use the word positive works by a positive side
psychologist including Professor Oades. So, the next stage would be trying to integrate subjective
research and objective research. I call this integrative approach, which comprises these two aspects,

Page 47 of 50

but this is a new frontier that I would like to do something about that in the future. Thanks. Can I
say one question to Professor Oades? Professor Oades, thank you very much for your presentation.
So, my question is, as for the well-being, I have been frustrated by the Japanese government on
coping with COVID-19. So, I admire the Australian and New Zealand policy on COVID-19. So
my question is that the well-being policy by New Zealand and Australia have a good influence on
the policies by both governments and also that kind of policy or policy orientation the difference
between red area and blue area, can I suggest something about that? That's my question.
Lindsay Oades:
Thank you. Explicitly, there's more well-being policy in New Zealand with well-being budgets,
etc. However, we must remember that New Zealand is a similar size to Melbourne. So, when we
say New Zealand, it's almost like talking about Victoria in terms of size, and the reason I makethat point is, my anecdotal observation is that it's been easier to implement these new policies insome smaller countries, but anecdotally, I'm also told that a lot of those countries are led by women.
So that's an actual one for the gender discussion. There is what I have noticed, I haven't seen it
reach major public policy in Australia, but there is an absolute increased awareness of mental
health and well-being because of the pandemic and certainly, in the education state, education
policies, there's a lot more well-being policy happening in response to the pandemic, but at anational or whole of government sort of public policy across the board, not yet, but just not somuch at a government level, but if I talk about my center for well-being science, there's been ahuge increase in inquiries to us since COVID. People knew about mental health, but they probably
didn't know as much about well-being, about how to get through your day, how to maintain yourrelationships, sort of all the broad aspects, psychological aspects of well-being as opposed to themore clinical mental illness. So, I would expect and hope that we will see more well-being public
policy in Australia as a result of COVID and as I said, we already are seeing some in the education
sector.
Afsana Begum:
As you have said about the women leaders in Germany and New Zealand, these are good things,
but I think that we need to have simultaneously the good of men leaders parallelly so that theywould accept those women leaders in the society. For example, I can say about Japan, like maybe

Page 48 of 50

you know about Yoshiro Mori, who was the Chairman of Olympics. So, what does he say about
women? He said that women are talkative, so they need not be in the sports director position, andhe also said sorry for that and he was not anymore in the directory level, but if this kind of things
came out from the male politicians or male directory position of men, so women will not be able
to step ahead in the politics. So that's the thing I think and after that, Professor Kawase's question,
thank you very much for the question. About the gender disparity differences, of course, thedivision of jobs is the first one, the employment sector. So, in most societies, where we think that
there is an inherent belief that the men are simply better equipped to handle certain jobs and that's
why most of the time, those are the jobs who play the best are the men and the discrimination result
is lower income for the women and not only the division of jobs, but also there are some morereasons behind the gender inequality or differences, for example, the uneven access in education,
the job segregation, and the legal protection in the medical care and also in the religious freedom.
When we see at the religion, all the topmost persons are male. So there, women are also lagging
in gender relations, gender differences in religion. Also, as I mentioned, my Sensei said about
political representation. So, those are very few, not very high ranges in the society and racism isalso a reason. For the gender difference, I want to conclude my answer by saying one thing, likewhen we are born, we are born as women, not as a human because when we are in the hospital, if
I am a girl, I am wrapped with a pink towel and if I'm a boy, I'm wrapped with a blue towel. So,
the stereotype, the gender differences start from when we are born. That's why even if it's the social
differences, it continues everywhere in the world, all the situations in the society. Thank you very
much.
Hikari Ishido:
Thanks so much, Ms. Afsana. I wanted to thank all of your presentations and then also in theface of justice and well-being have been the focus of our topic international symposium for today
and then this is just a perspective from medical ethics (Figure 33). I will not read this, but four
principles, respect, beneficence, non-maleficence, and then justice/equality. So, for policymaking,gender issues, we need these ideas, principles, not our right, doctors do not claim, this is our right
medical caretakers' right. No, respect for autonomy, beneficence, no maleficence against others,
justice, we could also have this kind of attitude and then we also need science, a risk-return frontier
from economics, sorry about this, but the best choice portfolio talking about three art issue, what

Page 49 of 50

kind of different uncertain claims can be solved using the scientific method (Figure 34). I will skip
it but enhancement of social well-being, mitigation of disastrous impacts could be done by scienceand then, of course, the importance of SDGs. And then lastly, online bonding like in this kind of
situation without any reasoning or science, we need bonding as human beings. So we are all online,
colleagues and friends after today. Thank you so much.
Figure 33 A Perspective from Medical Ethics

Figure 34 A Risk-Return Frontier

Page 50 of 50