3 ms·

The problem with your analysis is that you're not considering just how much "loss" we were averting via lockdowns. Do you think those negative effects of our pa

The problem with your analysis is that you're not considering just how much "loss" we were averting via lockdowns. Do you think those negative effects of our partial lockdowns outweigh 5X more COVID casualties, including many from preventable deaths that have nothing to do with COVID? We need a functional healthcare system, we could not allow it to become overwhelmed and collapse. There's also the ethical issue of allowing a disease to run rampant and ravage our elderly population - could we recover morally and ethically if we allowed 100's of thousands of older folks to die long, painful deaths so our economy was a tad stronger?

Wh1zz 6y ago
On that last part, I will confess it's unclear to me what the greater moral failing is between the 100s of thousands of elderly deaths, and lost economic growth. It comes down to how much is actually lost of course, and while I do believe what we're collectively going for is a good middle ground, I think also a lot of people don't really understand the magnitude of effects of economic growth over long periods of time. The difference between growth of 2% and 3% are enormous 50 years down the line, and may very well translate in many more deaths due to poverty and disease, as well as a great quality of life difference for billions of people (among many other effects).