3 ms·

I am not sure you put much thought into this. A life's worth is not infinite, so there must be some value associated with it. If the cost of doing something exc

I am not sure you put much thought into this. A life's worth is not infinite, so there must be some value associated with it. If the cost of doing something exceeds the values of the lives it is saving it is prudent to stop doing it. This is not unique to COVID-19, choices like this are made every day. We could prevent a lot of deaths by limiting the speed limit to 15 mph, but we don't because we value quicker transport more than those lives lost. Also poverty lowers life expectancy. If we are not careful about how and when we open the economy back up, we can cost the hundreds of millions of people months to years off their lives. This has to be weighed against the amount of lives that are being saved right now.

lostlogin 6y ago
> A life's worth is not infinite, so there must be some value associated with it. If the cost of doing something exceeds the values of the lives it is saving it is prudent to stop doing it. This gets ugly fast. How much do you value your life versus how much an economist who has never met you does? Then run that same test on your young child or elderly grandparent. It might be the best measure we have, but it’s a terrible one.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > This gets ugly fast. Yes, it's uncomfortable to think about, but that doesn't change it. Would you like your partner, parents or friends to die in a car accident? Of course not. Do you accept the reality of daily deaths of random people by car accidents as part of the price we pay for the quality of life we enjoy? Most likely yes. But questioning how many deaths per day by cars would be too much, that's where it gets very uncomfortable very fast. Is it a hundred in the US? A thousand? It's certainly not a million or there wouldn't be anyone left after not even a year, but a thousand? And what if 900 of these would be people aged 70 and over? It's uncomfortable to think about, even more so to say what number you arrive at, but that doesn't make it a thought crime.

lostlogin 6y ago

> A life's worth is not infinite, so there must be some value associated with it. If the cost of doing something exceeds the values of the lives it is saving it is prudent to stop doing it. This gets ugly fast. How much do you value your life versus how much an economist who has never met you does? Then run that same test on your young child or elderly grandparent. It might be the best measure we have, but it’s a terrible one.

luckylion 6y ago
> This gets ugly fast. Yes, it's uncomfortable to think about, but that doesn't change it. Would you like your partner, parents or friends to die in a car accident? Of course not. Do you accept the reality of daily deaths of random people by car accidents as part of the price we pay for the quality of life we enjoy? Most likely yes. But questioning how many deaths per day by cars would be too much, that's where it gets very uncomfortable very fast. Is it a hundred in the US? A thousand? It's certainly not a million or there wouldn't be anyone left after not even a year, but a thousand? And what if 900 of these would be people aged 70 and over? It's uncomfortable to think about, even more so to say what number you arrive at, but that doesn't make it a thought crime.