Is it though? First, poverty also results in the statistical loss of life. Suicide of a depressed unemployed person, or his death through lack of medical care he can’t afford is just as dead as from the complications of a viral infection. The problem faced cannot be seen as a simple formula. I would rather say that we look at actual data. The United States and Italy, with all the quarantine work stoppage and stay-at-home orders are still number 4 and number 2 in the number of corona deaths. New York enacted some rather strict orders, the numbers of deaths went up, so they enacted more orders. If deaths climb, will more orders be forthcoming?The alternative to what you call the ruin of many lives is the total loss of lives. One life lost that could have been saved by our due diligence is too many. Do you want that blood on your hands?
One can safely go to Hobby Lobby. One cannot safely go to a ball game, at least the way the seating was prior to this virus.Life goes on with social distancing too. The essential services are still operating. No one’s life will come to a stop because they can’t go to Hobby Lobby or a baseball game.
There is one small word there that politicians switch around a lot, that really is basic to the viewpoint one takes: “any” (as opposed to “every”) Every effort includes the wise and the foolish. This is s great approach in areas without a downside, like trying to develop a vaccine. In this all, avenues should be explored at once. In testing though, only some avenues should be explored.My irritation was directed toward the individual who seemed to think any effort to protect people‘s health was secondary to the financial “bottom line” of business.
I didnt read that into hiscomments at all.My irritation was directed toward the individual who seemed to think any effort to protect people‘s health was secondary to the financial “bottom line” of business.