In this paper, I will briefly outline why there is an ethical obligation to consider the aesthetic dimensions of public health responses to infectious disease outbreaks. Assuming – as many scholars conclude – that art and beauty are key aspects of what makes us humans and makes life worth living, the need to sustain life and health during outbreaks should be balanced against aesthetic interests but not supersede them, at least not indefinitely and in all instances. Moreover, basic interests in being alive and aesthetic interests intersect, and both sets of interests can be prioritized during outbreak responses with foresight and planning.Two such intersection points stand out: (a) architecture and urban design, and (b) design of infection control objects, e.g., masks. Intrinsically, beautiful places and beautiful objects are important for a good life even during outbreaks. Instrumentally, there’s a least some prima facie reasons to believe that attention to beautiful places and objects (e.g., aesthetically pleasing masks) might make it more likely for persons to uptake infection control measures. Even if these preliminary conclusions are sound, important questions remain; I will outline two such questions: first, what is the role of the state in promoting a conception of beauty for public health purposes, particularly in the context of liberal democracies, where there’s some belief (or group of overlapping beliefs) that the state should adopt a position of neutrality about the good life?Second,who should pay for beautiful outbreak control objects, especially if they’re more expensive than the functional but drab?