I’ve no idea what most of that means but I disagree in principle that all lives have equal value, even morally let alone economically. Obviously a murderous psychopath has little value compared to his victim. But I would argue an 85 year old in poor health does not have the value of a child with their life in front of them, and I would also argue most 85 year olds would agree with me.
There’s a denial of death that is quite common in the US, and it seems to have spread elsewhere. Death is a natural outcome of life, obviously and tragically comes far too soon for some, but most live four score years or so. Then your time is up, dictated mostly by DNA actually.
If that sounds like an argument for euthanasia it isn’t, I just think people should develop an acceptance of death rather than denying its inevitability.
As for Covid those that are vulnerable can be protected and government should support this. I know for example if I were in a vulnerable group I wouldn’t go near a school classroom.
Actuaries spend everyday putting a price on life relative to age, it should absolutely be a factor in building public policy around this. Because it is for everything else.
That said, the idea isn’t to just throw the at risk population to the wolves.
Nobody is saying throw them to the wolves though. We’ve shut down large parts of the world and shut our hospitals to sick people for a virus that has so far killed 0.00007% of the population, most of which were very sick or very old. It’s insanity.
I obviously meant everyone’s life as equally valuable as a principle. The death penalty for a murderer is a different debate.
Emphasizing this issue is hardly without point when you have people advocating a ‘herd immunity’ approach to this virus, advocacy that essentially amounts to a policy of euthanasia. There was much praise for the so called ‘Swedish approach’ – in The Spectator and so on – until events made clear this approach was not working as planned. The reality is that not enough is known as yet about this virus in many regards, such as whether infection leads to immunity. Many people, unwilling to see the state act in overarching fashion, made arguments out of ideological reflexes. This virus trumped many of the old reflexes.
Clear from start was the nervousness in certain quarters about the state emerging as a re-energized agent. There is likewise the shock involved in seeing the economic cycle laid bare as so fragile – not least because this virus, while hardest on the poorest, affects all sectors of society. The roulette factor ensures this crisis will not easily be solved.
Insanity? People like you seem incapable of grasping the most difficult aspect of this crisis: that any society, if it mishandles the challenge, is only three weeks or so removed from having its medical system overwhelmed, a scenario that would create not just dreadful logistical issues but also intractable ethical issues.
I have mixed thoughts on all this. I think I-Robot starring Will Smith is starting to look like a very visionary movie. The AI wants to stop people going outside because outside they might have accidents and die. I can also see that a two year lockdown is just too much. If I may, I’d like to put it down in a few points for you:
I think we can all agree that a two year lockdown isn’t on. Why exactly would we all agree on that? Because it’s disproportionate. I-Robot starring Will Smith would start to look like a very good movie.
Rather than have a two year lockdown we would probably all rather accept that historically there have all been deadly diseases and that we’ve been living in a privileged and unique era that didn’t have these fears. Accepting this would be the new “new-normal”, that sinister phrase so loved by our overlords.
However opening up would mean knowing that large numbers of people are going to die. Furthermore, we would be able to pinpoint fairly accurately the demographics which will be most affected.
An interesting question is whether those people’s deaths would morally count as murder. The word is getting thrown around on Twitter a lot. Being completely non-emotional about it, there’s obviously an argument to be made. We allow hundreds of peoples to die in car accidents every year, knowing full well that we could end those deaths if we put the speed limit at 30km per hour but we judge that the restriction on our freedom isn’t worth it. That is arguably murder as well.
Now I’ll get to the real problem:
I have friends whose grandparents were fit and healthy but who have died suddenly from coronavirus. How could I look these people in the eye and tell them that I think their family’s death is a price worth paying for reopening?
Furthermore, I would argue that this “can-you-look-me-in-the-eye-test” is actually a very good test for what defines a moral or immoral course of action. The reason why this is such a good test is because it has the dignity of the human being and human rights at its heart.
Another test which is inferior but still useful is the “would-you-say-these-opinions-publicly-in-decent-circles” test. This isn’t as good because nice middle class circles frequently hold awful opinions (they supported segregation for a long time in USA for example) but it’s still somewhat useful as an indicator. It’s strength partially lies in how closely related to the first test but also, it tests whether you have even the most basic courage of your convictions. If you don’t, then your convictions are probably shite.
On reflection, I don’t think that I could currently look my friends in the eye and say that re-opening now would be worth the death of the grandparents or even potentially parents.
I don’t believe that most of the people advocating reopening on this board could look those who have lost loved ones in the eye and tell them that either. In fact, while you were away, some of the people posting on this board changed their usernames to make sure that no polite middle-class person ever discovered some of the awful opinions that they post. The FBI were involved and it was very serious.
You’ve probably twigged by now that some of the people who post here aren’t very nice.
There seems to be an implication here that the government should discriminate between the value of people’s lives on an economic basis. Can you imagine meeting an angry old IRL man saying we should re-open because his life has more economic value than poor people. Such opinions would fail the “would-you-say-these-opinions-publicly-in-decent-circles” test and therefore should not be respected. You wouldn’t talk to this person in real life so you probably shouldn’t talk to them here.
It was Hubert Humphrey who said “The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.”
But this doesn’t change that a two-year lockdown is just not an option. There are mixed signals on how long a vaccine will take. Some people are saying December/ January and some are saying 2 and a half years. I would say give it until January and if there isn’t a vaccine in production by then just bite the bullet and begin reopening.
Apologies for the very long post @malarkey, I was getting some thoughts clear in my own head as much as anything.
I suppose you must have rid 100 women on Bumble since this lockdown started?
We cannot live in permanent lockdown – obviously enough. Yet supermarket staff have not become vectors of infection, best of my knowledge. A lot of these protocols may well become permanent. For Ireland, everything has slowed down. Nearly everything requires more planning.
What can be done is an identification of the principles on which society – silently, most of the time – operates. There will have to be new priorities.
The effects of this crisis on second and third level education are already profound and will only deepen. And any effect in the education sector will ultimately become an economic effect. Bluff guff about ‘insanity’ will not solve these problems.
Your statement about ‘looking people in the eye’ is spot on. What would I think of someone who said to me that my parents are expendable, because they are 75? The answer is obvious. Someone of whatever age, 85 or whatever else, could be a powerful force for good in their grandchildren’s lives. Older people’s value is not merely an economic one. If the old are mostly an economic drain, drawing pensions and so on, we should be bringing in as many emigrants as possible to pay taxes for their support.
Not necessarily talking about here at all but there is some cold irony in people banging on, simultaneously, about Judeo Christian values and de facto euthanasia.
Yeah, I am one of those people. Precise. You would not understand.
No, Sweden’s health service was not overwhelmed. This outcome was tightly related to Sweden’s well funded health sector and a low population density (12 times less dense than UK rate, for instance). But hailing a service for not being overwhelmed is not exactly a clarion call for a particular approach. There is a general agreement now, even in Spectator silence on the subject, about Sweden’s needless loss of life (and of resources, of course) in adopting a loose form of lockdown.
As we have seen over and over again in this period, people need to be saved from themselves – if only to save other less heedless people. The nanny state will always be needed when a significant proportion of people behave in an infantile fashion.
Of course, you are one of the ‘herd immunity’ guff merchants with not even a scintilla of science to hide behind.
Essays being written here and nothing being said. Questioning the lockdown equals wanting old people to die and then acknowledging that the lockdown is wrong but there’s nothing for it but to keep doing it.
Don’t be giving me that shit two posts after you said any society that mishandles this “is” going to have its health service overwhelmed. You’re the guff merchant here
It’s why there is no grown up conversations happening about this. As soon as one starts an hysterical person just starts screaming murderers and everyone retreats into their shells.
