Let's not read too much into a sentence that's not super nuanced. It's not only old people, but it's mostly old people and people with severe comorbidities.
> And the comparison you're making is inhumane and possibly a false choice. We should strive to save both the "whites in their 70s" and the poor people of Africa.
Yes, ideally we'll always save everyone. Unfortunately, the world is rarely ideal, so we often have to make choices. If two people need a lung transplant and we only have one, what do we do? There's one 80yo smoker and one otherwise healthy 20yo. Do we flip a coin?
You realize that you're speaking of a majority of the population, right? 1 in 3 Americans are prediabetic. Nearly half of Americans suffer from heart disease.
> the world is rarely ideal
That's a platitude.
Also given we do talk about the real world, we also have to consider that a country's first priority is towards saving its own citizens. Not ideal, but a fact, driven by those who vote and pay taxes. Nobody is going to allow the death of their own citizens in order to save people living on another continent.
People bring the starving children of Africa into the discussion without actually caring or doing anything about those children.
> If two people need a lung transplant and we only have one, what do we do?
False analogy. Medical triage is at some point necessary, but that's not what we are talking about.
But I'm glad that you brought this point up, because young people that need oxygen or ventilators will die if they don't receive it.
It's not just about people on another continent though. Modern life costs money. Keep everything locked down, reduce economic output, and you will feel that. Social programs are too expensive so he US accepts a 10 year class-difference in life expectancy? That'll be increased with a halved economy and taxes drying up completely.
> False analogy. Medical triage is at some point necessary, but that's not what we are talking about.
Sure we are. You can measure the impact of an economic depression on life expectancy. The choice isn't between no deaths, just a tiny bit of inconvenience and every old person dies. It's a higher chance of death for the old and the severely ill vs a general shortening of life expectancy. And there's the uncertainty: we don't know whether we will, in the end, save anyone with a multi-month or multi-year wide-reaching lockdown. But we do have a good idea what will happen if we crash the economy.
So you'll get a significant percent of the workforce incapacitated, either because they get sick and need hospitalization, or because their parents or grandparents die. During such a pandemic the economy suffers anyway, because appetite for risk or for buying useless shit people don't need goes down.
N.B. people often point at Sweden these days, as being in a not that bad situation, however note that the Swedes are very disciplined and many of them have isolated themselves voluntarily. Given their culture, their slightly optimistic scenario can't be easily replicated and the jury is still out anyway.
And the comparison you're making is inhumane and possibly a false choice. We should strive to save both the "whites in their 70s" and the poor people of Africa.