based on various data sources, it is clear that covid is only a real threat to the elderly and those with underlying conditions (and in fact the elderly who succumb generally ALSO have an underlying condition). In fact it looks like 99% of deaths are among the elderly and/or those with underlying conditions. — dazed
The current policy is driven by the notion that all human life has intrinsic value and that our response to covid is all about preserving those valuable human lives... — dazed
based on various data sources, it is clear that covid is only a real threat to the elderly and those with underlying conditions (and in fact the elderly who succumb generally ALSO have an underlying condition). — dazed
from a pure utilitarian perspective it seems obvious that the amount of human suffering caused by this collateral damage to billions of people far outweighs the suffering by the millions who died or were hospitalised with covid. — dazed
I think those with purely atheistic views would have taken a very different policy approach to covid, so ultimately belief in God is again to blame for yet another mess... — dazed
The current policy is driven by the notion that all human life has intrinsic value and that our response to covid is all about preserving those valuable human lives... — dazed
What's your definition of "a threat"? Does an unknown chance to contract long term debilitating fatigue and other neurological symptoms count as "a threat"? Is overworking doctors, nurses and other medical stuff "a threat"? Is asking those same overworked medical personal to perform triage "a threat"? — Echarmion
It does not seem obvious to me. For one, it would seem to me we'd have to be able to predict the long term consequences of "just letting the virus do it's thing". But we really can't. And from a utilitarian perspective, if the risk is unknown, you should always assume it's worse than you think. — Echarmion
I used the adjective "real" before the word threat, the odds of covid causing the kinds of additional complications are so extremely rare (how many under 80 have such complications?) so the force of the overall argument remains. — dazed
what long term consequences are you referring to? the same extremely rare complications you refer to above? — dazed
So letting the virus run rampant and closing hospitals to those over 80 would, of course kill tons of those over 80, but it would also have overwhelmed hospitals with younger COVID patients so regular sick folks (without COVID) would be crowded out and death rates for everything else would have jumped. — LuckyR
Noone knows how common they are with any certainty, which is part of the reason why we should be pessimistic about them. The force of the overall argument does not remain. It cannot remain. If you properly understand utilitarianism, you understand that every consequence needs to be accounted for, so you do need to take this into account. If your argument remains unchanged after hearing about negative consequences, then you're doing it wrong. — Echarmion
No, the social, political, economic and cultural consequences of letting millions of people die, apparently at home or in some kind of mass palliative care, burying them in mass graves, and telling everyone they really shouldn't get all emotional about it, since it really was the only rational choice.
And what about the pressures this kind of strategy puts on people? With the virus at high tide, how many people are forced into a decision of going to work and risking their health and that of their families or loose their job? And what if you miscalculated the chance of complications and hospitals are forced to triage the patients under 80? Did you actually consult any statistics and look at likely scenarios for your plan or do you just figure it'll work based on "common sense"? — Echarmion
the same extremely rare complications you refer to above? — dazed
But it is simply publicly not palatable for a politician to come out and say "we need to limit our medical resources to protect the lives of those under 80 to preserve our way of life and society for those under 80"...and why is that not palatable? — dazed
the hospitilization RATE does not alter with the amount of infection — dazed
worst case we let it spread and in fact it wreaks havoc among those under 80 such that our hospitals can't cope then we respond with restrictions — dazed
Yes it does. Once the hospitals are maxed out, or as in your schema simply not employed for Covid, the rate plummets because there's no room for more patients. It becomes a one-in one-out deal. — Kenosha Kid
worst case we let it spread and in fact it wreaks havoc among those under 80 such that our hospitals can't cope then we respond with restrictions
— dazed
I agree that is the worst case. Kind of weird that you're advocating for it. — Kenosha Kid
I am saying restrictions and lockdowns should only occur if we get to such a state... — dazed
I don't think it is predictable, given what happened in Sweden and other areas with little to no restrictions, where they were also providing care to the over 80's — dazed
he probability of contracting Covid is proportional to the number of people you directly or indirectly interact with, e.g. the number you speak to, the number who touch the same door handle as you, the number who use the same ATM, etc. Sweden has a population density of 25 people per square kilometre. New York has a population density of 40,000 people per square kilometre. Can you see how that will effect the spread of the virus and the measures necessary to contain it? — Kenosha Kid
yes I can see that there will likely be more cases in densely populated areas but this does not mean that our hospitals would in fact become over-run. — dazed
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.