Your reply didn't really address the question. There are many communicable diseases that kill, if you're being consistent with this save every life possible approach, you also need to stay in your home any time the flu is going around. Do those deaths not count? Tens of thousands of dead are ok, but a hundred thousand is not? How do you decide which lives are worth saving when you throw out these caviler implied moral condemnations of anyone who wouldn't live in a state of permanent lockdown to save lives? that's the question. I'm asking this due to your super self certain wording.
Basically, I would never make such absolute statements because saving lives is always an opportunity cost. Human life is only so long, if I stay in lockdown a year to save a stranger, I might miss the last Thanksgiving with a parent or grandparent in their last year on the planet and never know until it is too late. That's not a trivial cost when you lock down a million to save one, while all one million lose a piece of their finite lives forever.
You are correct that I'd phrase this differently were I writing an abstract philosophy treatise or an analytical public health paper. I was writing in a casual discussion forum about what I am currently doing in the middle of a global public health crisis that has killed 2 million people, mostly needlessly. So yes, I'm going to write clearly and frankly.
And my moral condemnation for people is absolutely not cavalier. I actively and vigorously condemn the legion of assholes who think mild personal inconvenience is worse than mass death plus a much greater swathe of serious illness. I also condemn the societal moral failures that have impeded a sensible coordinated response, especially the politicians who, having created and sustained an underclass, now insist for ideological reasons that their suffering should be deepened while at the same time making the pandemic worse for everyone. It's both moral idiocy and moral obscenity. At best, it's obliviousness or IGMFU. But more often, as Serwer wrote, "The cruelty is the point."
That's a great question. While I'm not the person who you asked, I'd like to get some examples from you. Which other pandemic outbreak are you referring to? Or are you referring to some communicable disease which isn't a pandemic?
I'm mostly thinking of the flu. I actually don't know if there are any other viruses that take 1000s of lives in the average year. I also don't know why covid is classified as a pandemic and the flu is just normal. What is the criteria? A specific percentage of deaths? Some specific combination of R factor and rate of deaths? Mainly, I think it is clear that if you say 1% deaths justifies massive action but .01% does not, the deaths are still all human lives and so it is literally a claim that decides how much one life is worth. It is an economic calculus on human life, and so in my mind absolutely deserves an objective justification for deciding.
One example analogy would be increased airline safety regulation. More regulation increases ticket prices. Supply and demand means a high price will ultimately cause a family to decide to make a road trip over flying for economic reasons. The chance of dying in a multi hour car drive is far higher than in one hour on a commercial aircraft. You can at least use numbers in this case to say if new regulation is justified based on the expected lives saved.
Apart from the higher numbers a good reason to be concerned about the novel coronavirus is the "novel" part. The 1918 pandemic was initially known as the three day flu but the second wave mutated into a 12 hour death sentence.
