Re: It seems like you may have a blueprint ... Archived Message
Posted by Willem on September 23, 2020, 1:11 pm, in reply to "It seems like you may have a blueprint ..."
Not sure why you consider the question boring. It's very relevant. My answer is that what's acceptable is closely linked to how much one do to bring the number down and the cost of doing so. We can also look to see what has been deemed acceptable by society for years. On this last point, routinely there would be around 10000 deaths* due to flu, a fact that's apparently deemed acceptable as there are no requests for restriction measures to reduce this figure that I'm aware of. And I agree with that on the basis that the negative consequences of such measures far outweigh the positives. (Of course the state can and should encourage healthy living, as well as provide a decent health service -- but I'm speaking of extra measures like social distancing.) Now excess deaths for something altogether different (eg due to asbestos poisining), even if the numbers are much lower -- for the sake of argument say 100 a year -- I'd say are unacceptably high, as to reduce them is feasible and doesn't have any major impact on society. When it comes to covid-19, I see very large impacts on society from the measures taken -- way beyond what I would deem acceptable. *https://www.botolph.org/website/Y00486/files/UK_FLU_0419_0072-GP-Flu_Awareness_Poster.pdf
|
|