4 ms·
You are assuming that a particular course of action: (1) is guaranteed to be the best way to save lives and (2) only has ramifications which we have the ability
by gbjw 6y ago
You are assuming that a particular course of action: (1) is guaranteed to be the best way to save lives and (2) only has ramifications which we have the ability to ‘adjust’. Many scientists may disagree with you on both accounts. I don’t see why they are not holding themselves to the highest ethical standards.
- kgarten 6y agoIn hypotheticals I would agree with you. Yet, at the time of the writing of that article, the data from several countries regarding COVID 19 were in, and we have an indication on what metrics work to limit deaths. We also see what we could have done to prevent and outbreak, China, South Korea, Hong Kong and Taiwan seemed to be extremely prepared. Germany followed the virologist, epidemiologist consensus (and is going now off track to open businesses again ... a lot of scientist believe too early). We will see in the long run which approaches worked and which didn’t. Yet, calling for an opening of businesses (because we cannot be sure about the death rate), when none of the successful countries did that, is ethically dubious to me.