Another way of thinking about it is that there are other non-coronavirus interventions you can perform that will convert money into lives. if you spend money performing coronavirus interventions then you retard your ability to perform these other interventions that might be more efficient at converting money into lives.

>I am disgusted at even a mention of these kind of 'calculations'.

These calculations have to be made because economic impacts also have a death toll. It all comes back to saving lives in the end.

>I am prepared to take a hit in my earnings, paying higher taxes if needed after this if that is what it takes for at least one person more to live.

As a side note, you can do this any time, and unrelated to the pandemic. There are charities you can donate to to save lives if you are so inclined.

You can save a life for every ~$3k you donate to malaria prevention.

No need to wait for a pandemic to donate all superfluous earnings to life-saving causes. There doesn't seem to be a shortage of them.

Every second you spend on HN instead of moonlighting for extra cash to donate (it goes without saying you already donate your salary beyond what's required for subsistence) is frankly disgusting to me. You're murdering by the second.

How about 99% of your income? Your assets? How much is a stranger’s life worth to you.

Slippery slope fallacy. We are nowhere near that point.

What? This has nothing to do with the slippery slope fallacy. . It's not because we're aren't there yet that saying that it could happen is a fallacy. With that logic any type of planning or forecast about the virus is just a slippery slope since we aren't there. And If you agree that forecasts about the virus are okay, I dont see why forecasts about the economy depending on what policy is enforced (full isolation that would ruin the economy or allow people to get infected to keep it going) are worst?

It is textbook slippery slope.

Because grandparent said they would sacrifice a realistic tax increase to save lives in the COVID-19 outbreak, the parent asked about a confiscatory 99% tax rate and asset seizure, which would be wholly unnecessary for paying for the current crisis.

Yes, current crisis. Everyone agrees on the fact that the virus will probably spread and become much more widespread. Isn't it logical that costs will go up too, especially if the state decides that the economy isn't worth the loss of lives? Is slippery slope just saying that cause and effect exist now?

I don't see how the original comment was unreasonable in asking what is the threshold where economic losses are too high. Halting all economic activity to completely stop the spread of the disease and prevent deaths amounts to a 100% taxation since you are forced to not work and generate revenue. Whether that is acceptable or not isn't my point, but asking the question isn't a fallacy

There are no economic losses too high as long as loss of life is less.

They didn't mention confiscation anywhere.

You guys missed the point of my post. GP was saying that he found it reprehensible to make calculations on human life. My point was that he had already made such a calculation, implicitly. The value of a stranger to him is exactly worth however % income decrease he's willing to take + % increase in tax. Everyone makes this calculation every day.

Just give some money to an old person, then.