But in real world that is not possible. There's somewhere a line you have to draw. How many man-hours would you be willing to spend to save someone who would die in a week anyway?
According to that logic you should have all 7+ billion people working that whole week to keep this person alive.
Would the man-hours spent saving that person have to be exactly the same as saving someone who has further life expectancy of 70 years?
That's not really the choice here. The choice is we squelch the virus and my dad and his grand children get to see each other again. Vs you not being inconvenienced.
I couldn't reply for the other comment, maybe because it's too nested, but I'm replying to:
> You're pretending that the economic dislocations are do to measures to combate the virus instead of the virus killing people. Countries that acted swiftly and forcefully are returning to normal right now. While countries that are handling the way you want are seeing no end to this. Meaning you are 180 degrees wrong, your way kills people from the virus. You way kills people via extended economic dislocation.
1. I haven't made a choice on what is the best option.
2. There's no "my way", all I'm saying that these aspects should be considered and math should be ran and it is possible that another option could be better, a combination of some options etc. And in order to determine what is the best way should be using calculations.
3. It should also be discussed how to do these calculations. Should we consider death as a binary or should we consider "time left", "quality time left". How do we calculate loss of life, time, resources that stems from people unable to be productive etc, because certainly there are consequences to that.
4. I'm trying to prove that this should not be binary and there should be a line drawn somewhere considering all the pros and cons from the both sides, assigning weights to those and trying to predict what is best option from that.
These discussions should still be held even if it's not about coronavirus, but other similar decisions as well.
Since you are trying to make things personal... I'm personally not inconvenienced, I love WFH and having a good reason not to meet people.
So once again is that choice also appropriate if 7+ bln people have to spend 3 months working in order to save your dad? Obviously a lot of other people die because if they have to work 3 months saving your father it means the doctors are not saving other people, we won't have food etc.
I'm trying to show that there must be a line drawn somewhere and it can't be binary.
You're pretending that the economic dislocations are do to measures to combate the virus instead of the virus killing people. Countries that acted swiftly and forcefully are returning to normal right now. While countries that are handling the way you want are seeing no end to this. Meaning you are 180 degrees wrong, your way kills people from the virus. You way kills people via extended economic dislocation.
According to that logic you should have all 7+ billion people working that whole week to keep this person alive.
Would the man-hours spent saving that person have to be exactly the same as saving someone who has further life expectancy of 70 years?