If I arbitrarily save lives, that's still saved lives. If I arbitrarily reduce the risk of causing harm, that's still reduced risk of harm. Those are good. I value results over consistency. I definitely value results over analysis paralysis, over waiting for a perfection of clarity not available this side of the grave.

And as best I know, I do "do this" with all potentially fatal communicable diseases. I get the flu shot every year. I even do it with non-fatal diseases as best I can. When I'm sick, I stay the hell home. I exercise good hygiene and good food safety.

And I have no idea why people don't do otherwise. All it takes is valuing others' health and survival.

If you have any symptoms of a communicable disease you should wear a mask.

The fact that we started doing this in 2020 is the problem, we should have done this every flu season.

It works, it reduces transmission. Asian countries have been doing this for years, it’s an expected norm.

The rest of the measures are debatable, but wearing a mask when you’re sick should not be.

I was caught completely by surprise when the huge mask resistance in the US emerged. I found it absurd, here you are making an ordeal of holding doors for people, like it makes you a great person, a useless gesture, and meanwhile the singular act of goodwill we have needed from others in 100 years is a freaking mask, and it is "robbing you of your freedoms".

I am biased though. I've always had a huge admiration of Japan and resentment that I couldn't wear a mask when sick, because it is illegal in many jurisdictions in the US for anyone over 18 to wear a mask as well as those under when it's not halloween.

I highly doubt after the pandemic masks are going to suddenly be legalized. Cops appear to just be ignoring the law right now, which is absurd.

Because we can look at countries who have done bad and go, yeah we could be like US/UK with all their actual deaths.

Your reply didn't really address the question. There are many communicable diseases that kill, if you're being consistent with this save every life possible approach, you also need to stay in your home any time the flu is going around. Do those deaths not count? Tens of thousands of dead are ok, but a hundred thousand is not? How do you decide which lives are worth saving when you throw out these caviler implied moral condemnations of anyone who wouldn't live in a state of permanent lockdown to save lives? that's the question. I'm asking this due to your super self certain wording.

Basically, I would never make such absolute statements because saving lives is always an opportunity cost. Human life is only so long, if I stay in lockdown a year to save a stranger, I might miss the last Thanksgiving with a parent or grandparent in their last year on the planet and never know until it is too late. That's not a trivial cost when you lock down a million to save one, while all one million lose a piece of their finite lives forever.

You are correct that I'd phrase this differently were I writing an abstract philosophy treatise or an analytical public health paper. I was writing in a casual discussion forum about what I am currently doing in the middle of a global public health crisis that has killed 2 million people, mostly needlessly. So yes, I'm going to write clearly and frankly.

And my moral condemnation for people is absolutely not cavalier. I actively and vigorously condemn the legion of assholes who think mild personal inconvenience is worse than mass death plus a much greater swathe of serious illness. I also condemn the societal moral failures that have impeded a sensible coordinated response, especially the politicians who, having created and sustained an underclass, now insist for ideological reasons that their suffering should be deepened while at the same time making the pandemic worse for everyone. It's both moral idiocy and moral obscenity. At best, it's obliviousness or IGMFU. But more often, as Serwer wrote, "The cruelty is the point."

That's a great question. While I'm not the person who you asked, I'd like to get some examples from you. Which other pandemic outbreak are you referring to? Or are you referring to some communicable disease which isn't a pandemic?

I'm mostly thinking of the flu. I actually don't know if there are any other viruses that take 1000s of lives in the average year. I also don't know why covid is classified as a pandemic and the flu is just normal. What is the criteria? A specific percentage of deaths? Some specific combination of R factor and rate of deaths? Mainly, I think it is clear that if you say 1% deaths justifies massive action but .01% does not, the deaths are still all human lives and so it is literally a claim that decides how much one life is worth. It is an economic calculus on human life, and so in my mind absolutely deserves an objective justification for deciding.

One example analogy would be increased airline safety regulation. More regulation increases ticket prices. Supply and demand means a high price will ultimately cause a family to decide to make a road trip over flying for economic reasons. The chance of dying in a multi hour car drive is far higher than in one hour on a commercial aircraft. You can at least use numbers in this case to say if new regulation is justified based on the expected lives saved.

Apart from the higher numbers a good reason to be concerned about the novel coronavirus is the "novel" part. The 1918 pandemic was initially known as the three day flu but the second wave mutated into a 12 hour death sentence.