Quote (balrog66 @ 18 Mar 2020 16:25)
I wouldn't say it worsens the problem as much as it delays it, at great cost to the economy.
But idk what the best approach is, even the experts aren't sure.
I'm sure once we get the 20/20 hindsight vision some heads will roll.
Yeah, time will tell, and shit storms will arise in countries that went down whichever path proves worse.
Quote (Saucisson6000 @ 18 Mar 2020 16:33)
Acting late is not bad : We have proofs it works extremely well since the areas locked 3 weeks ago are now triggering much less cases.
Imagine the mess if you start to enter in acceptance of contaminating everybody, killing people, also dividing them in a unique way. This is a call to finish to destroy the very few respect we, people, have to each others.
Lockdown in China is much more effective than in Europe. In Wuhan, people were not allowed to leave their homes under any circumstances, and food was being delivered to them. In Spain, Italy, etc, people are going to the supermarket, bank and so on, and public transportation is still functioning as some people are still allowed to work. Plus there are people who still break curfew, while in China nobody would dare do that.
On another note, I think people are mistaken when they think that those accepting the risk of letting avoidable deaths happen are cold, monstrous or lack solidarity. These people fear the impact the economic consequences will have on the population... job losses, budget cuts, evictions, etc. and they believe this will cause a greater suffering to the overall population, than the deaths of a small percentage of people who in many cases don't have much time left anyway.
Our culture is generally skewed in favour of Kantist morality, but that doesn't mean utilitarianism is immoral. It's essentially driven by the same impulses of solidarity and wanting the betterment of people's well being... it's just the approach on how to reach that good that makes them at odds with each other. Both utilitarian and kantist morality pursue good.
Consider this thought experiment:
Imagine a deity descended to Earth and told humans that it could get rid of cancer forever, making our species immune to it... however, if we chose to accept this gift, we will forever be banned from using internet. Would it be immoral to "let millions of people die" while we try and find a cure for ourselves, or should we accept the gift and get rid of cancer forever... at the expense of losing the internet, and seeing our whole social and economic system collapse, leading to much more suffering and deaths of other kind?
I think we would likely all accept the deaths from cancer in this case.
And I know this thought experiment is exaggerated, but I just wanted to show that the reasoning behind it isn't inherently immoral.