Much is currently being made of a poll that was taken about the “acceptability” of the number of deaths from the Coronavirus. Seems like a strange question, and I would love to see the exact wording of the question, but nevertheless, 57% of republicans say that the current number of deaths via COVID are acceptable. This has prompted a great hue and cry from many quarters. I am awfully glad that I was not asked this question, because it would have left me in a gigantic quandary of conflicting thoughts. The pollster would probably have fallen asleep before I was able to answer the question. I would have peppered him or her with many questions of my own, primarily, compared to what?
Last year, in the United States there were 170,000 accidental deaths, ie deaths that were unintentional, many job related, most of them motor vehicle accidents. I would imagine to the families of these 170,000 souls, not a single one would have been acceptable. But, what about to the nation as a whole? Considering how much physical work gets done in this country every year, considering the millions of miles that Americans drive every year, 170,000 deaths would be considered acceptable as a natural consequence of human activity. I doubt there would be any calls for parking our cars, or avoiding work because of the potential for fatal accidents. However, nobody would object to precautions taken to lessen the number of such accidents through things like seat belts, airbags, driving slower, and work place safety measures.
When it comes to COVID deaths, 174,000 deaths over the past six months is a lot of death. Moreover, unlike car accidents or falling off os a scaffold on a construction site, COVID is contagious. Anything that is so seems scarier. But, to those who say, this amount of deaths is unacceptable, what does that mean exactly? Do they mean that 174,000 deaths from COVID could have been avoided with some different policy provisions? Perhaps if we had followed New Zealand’s example, we could have saved many lives? New Zealand is home to 4.5 million people, similar to the population of Kentucky. Yet, its land area would cover the east coast from Florida to Pennsylvania. New Zealand isn’t a financial center of the world. New Zealand doesn’t have people from all over the world traveling to and from its shores. Maybe what worked for New Zealand is impractical for us, maybe not. But isn’t context important?
If the point of the poll question is How many deaths from a currently incurable disease is acceptable in the context of a free society with a trillion dollar economy, then I might be inclined to answer...yes. One has to answer another question, it seems to me...what amount of destruction of businesses, increased domestic violence, increased suicides, along with rises in mental health problems are acceptable as the alternative? The question of risk always involves trade offs. If you shut down a nation as large and economically consequential as ours, attempt to quarantine 300 million people as volatile as us, you are basically accepting the above risks as more desirable than the loss of 174,000 people from COVID. That’s an entirely fair and justifiable position to take, and I’m not saying you are wrong to think so. But, the question seems over simplified. Perhaps some of the folks who answered the poll question had these trade offs in mind. Maybe some of them thought the question a strange one. Or, maybe some of them are heartless money-grabbers who care nothing about deaths. Who knows? What would have been my answer? Probably something like....it’s complicated!!
No comments:
Post a Comment