> CDC data says there 99.97% survival rate for all Americans between the ages of 20-49
First: are citizens over 49 chopped liver?
Second: there are roughly 129 million Americans between 20-49 [0]; taking the 99.97% number at face value, napkin math indicates 39,000 potential deaths. This is roughly equivalent to yearly car crash deaths, which is the basis for a massive state safety apparatus, restricting both commerce and liberty (freedom to drive 120mph). Plenty of room to debate efficacy and tradeoffs in road safety policy; but it's arguably reasonable to justify non-zero state intervention in both cases.
Third: there are considerations beyond mortality rate; many survivors are expected to have ongoing health conditions and/or shortened lifespans due to lung damage.
Let the record show, I think lockdowns in some regions have gone too far, while the laissez-faire approaches in other regions haven't gone far enough. Framing the question as "Lockdowns: Y/N?" is exactly the kind of simplistic narrative thinking that I'm claiming is unproductive (and ultimately downstream of political tribalism). For instance, permitting tightly-packed indoor concerts with no mitigations seems foolhardy; but allowing haircuts with masks and temperature checks has no nowhere near the same risk profile, mathematically. We have to balance a variety of concerns, include economic factors, preferably using thought-technologies like QALYs [1] and micromorts [2].
> They also have the option to limit to eliminate their contact with others
This is a fantasy. While individuals have some ability to mitigate personal risk, absent a massive proactive intervention (MREs, medicine, and other essential supplies delivered by an E2E-tested supply chain, plus temporary UBI and/or rent freezes), very few people have the means to completely cut themselves off from all outside contact for more than a few days. Anything that increases risk to grocery stockers therefore increases risk to everyone, no matter the precautions individuals take. "If you have an immune disorder, you should have already prepped 18 months of resources in a bunker" doesn't pass a humanitarian sniff test.
I love the grocery example, most of the major stores now have Curb side pickup, why is this not a factor into your mitigation of contact.
Meeting a single store employee outside while wearing a mask has a near zero transmission risk, this does not require one to be a 18 month pepper to take advantage of
As to the debate over Traffic safety, I am sure it will not come as a shock that I oppose government mandated Seat Belt laws as well as many other items. I want a very very small government to the point of almost non-existence
First: are citizens over 49 chopped liver?
Second: there are roughly 129 million Americans between 20-49 [0]; taking the 99.97% number at face value, napkin math indicates 39,000 potential deaths. This is roughly equivalent to yearly car crash deaths, which is the basis for a massive state safety apparatus, restricting both commerce and liberty (freedom to drive 120mph). Plenty of room to debate efficacy and tradeoffs in road safety policy; but it's arguably reasonable to justify non-zero state intervention in both cases.
Third: there are considerations beyond mortality rate; many survivors are expected to have ongoing health conditions and/or shortened lifespans due to lung damage.
Let the record show, I think lockdowns in some regions have gone too far, while the laissez-faire approaches in other regions haven't gone far enough. Framing the question as "Lockdowns: Y/N?" is exactly the kind of simplistic narrative thinking that I'm claiming is unproductive (and ultimately downstream of political tribalism). For instance, permitting tightly-packed indoor concerts with no mitigations seems foolhardy; but allowing haircuts with masks and temperature checks has no nowhere near the same risk profile, mathematically. We have to balance a variety of concerns, include economic factors, preferably using thought-technologies like QALYs [1] and micromorts [2].
> They also have the option to limit to eliminate their contact with others
This is a fantasy. While individuals have some ability to mitigate personal risk, absent a massive proactive intervention (MREs, medicine, and other essential supplies delivered by an E2E-tested supply chain, plus temporary UBI and/or rent freezes), very few people have the means to completely cut themselves off from all outside contact for more than a few days. Anything that increases risk to grocery stockers therefore increases risk to everyone, no matter the precautions individuals take. "If you have an immune disorder, you should have already prepped 18 months of resources in a bunker" doesn't pass a humanitarian sniff test.
[0] Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/241488/population-of-the...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort