I think your argument is disingenuously reductive but I'll bite: yeah. Life over limb is not a hard argument. Thankfully nobody is going around chopping off fingers. Would you donate blood to save lives? Or reduce a company's profit a bit to have less environmental impact through regulations?

I presume you benefit from living in a society. There are trade offs and costs to this benefit. Even if you pulled yourself up by your bootstraps, have a business, self made man whatever you benefit regardless of your feelings on others and their entitlements from the infrastructure. It gives you access to whatever it is that you make you living doing.

You are welcome to go live on the trap line and ignore all this and thus abstain but please, please be consistent and don't show up to clog a hospital bed when you get sick from the consequences of you actions.

Way to not address the issue at all. Some people have dog allergies should we outlaw dogs to save the unfortunate few? How do you balance the benefits of your interventions with the damages?

I acknowledge your point but disagree with the logic behind it. Perhaps someone has died from a dog allergy but not any significant amount to affect society and the medical systems capability to deal with everything else. This was a one in a few generation pandemic and clearly a different situation. Why someone would expect a perfect public policy response to this I also can't imagine and lessons are hopefully learned from it. I think there was a lot of grift in there as humans are oft to do with bailouts, subsidies, contracts and when it got politicized it all went to hell so I can't defend that.

As an aside certainly some have died from aggressive dog breeds. I personally agree with the bans that exist in some municipalities on them to prevent a toddler from getting mauled. But I can see how some don't and that is a valid perspective.

Thank you for sharing your perspective.

Yes my original comment was honestly in response to your comment that you are losing faith in humanity based on the response you are seeing. I have no conclusion really on which way I think things should have been decided and think the only way things can be improved upon is if we take an honest critical look at what we are doing. My analogies are not similar in extent to COVID but are hopefully illustrative of the pitfalls of solving one problem and creating others and the need to practically account for it, at least after the fact acknowledge it, don't get butthurt because not everyone could immediately get with the program.