The argument was made that "avoiding unnecessary death > fun/comfort things to do". The counter argument was "if that was true, we'd ban lots of things" and tha

The argument was made that "avoiding unnecessary death > fun/comfort things to do". The counter argument was "if that was true, we'd ban lots of things" and that it's more of a question of how many deaths vs how much fun/comfort. One death a year vs permanent lockdown? We won't lock down. 99% of society dying vs washing your hands once a day? We'll make hand-washing mandatory. The deaths from Covid-19 and the responses to it are somewhere between those extremes. The important point here is: it's not a matter of moral principles, it's a matter of where on those scales you put the deaths/counter measures. Pretending that it's a moral argument (as in "you're immoral if you accept any amount of unnecessary deaths for non-essential things like going to festivals or having pineapple delivered to your door") is simply not working unless you (demand to) ban plenty of things.