> if we were optimizing for general well-being... Fair enough, I wasn't clear: we _should_ be optimizing for general well-being, and among other things I think

> if we were optimizing for general well-being... Fair enough, I wasn't clear: we _should_ be optimizing for general well-being, and among other things I think minimum-effort disease-prevention (masks, distancing, reasonable sick leave) are completely reasonable asks. Similarly, we probably shouldn't be relying on a mega-consumerist culture that, when suppressed for whatever reason, has far-reaching economic effects that doom millions in developing countries to hunger/whathaveyou. But these issues are not in opposition, we just have a crappy system that doesn't deal with both of them well at the same time. I think it's unreasonable to frame it as "well we can only address these issues in degrees, lest we make the other worse" and not question the system that somehow frames disease prevention and feeding people as opposing goals. It's certainly possible to address this disease without such drastic impacts, but it relies on the population having an empathic mentality. Look at Japan, as an example[0]: Similar in terms of development, but with a much less invasive response they've only suffered around 2.3k deaths _total_, when the US is already seeing that number daily. You are completely correct that "a huge % of the population is not happy with the current actions and policy being performed," because we have examples of cultures that are weathering this storm FAR better than those of us in the USA are.... but I think attitudes like yours are contributing to our failure to deal with this pandemic well. [0]: https://www.economist.com/asia/2020/12/12/the-japanese-authorities-understood-covid-19-better-than-most https://www.economist.com/asia/2020/12/12/the-japanese-autho...