Given the state of the economy, unemployment, long term health and everything else on the horizon, it’s quite fortunate that you equate living with survival and nothing else.
Not me kid, just biology paleontology sociology psychology etc. People outside the socialist have written books you know, some of them are quite well regarded.
Believe me - I'm frequently found in a state over the future this country faces. But I won't give in to the predictable answers people traditionally come up with. It's usually false succour for the self - one way or another - rather than a way forward.
You're saying, the lives of those who survive will not worth living. I think you're over-reacting, and not accounting for the potential effect of your approach on individuals and communities.
Psychological and social responses to witnessing and being complicit in a society that didn't try to prevent large numbers of people dying, would be one concern. Living, knowing that you maybe only enjoyed that extra pint at the end of the week, because someone decided that sort of thing justified not making any effort to protect the eldery and vulnerable.
Yes, you can argue either way, what is neccessary for us to thrive. That much should be obvious. Neither way will work perfectly. People have unavoidable differences in their make up and outlook. No solution would be tolerable to everyone. What relieves and gladdens spirit one may break anothers profoundly.
Threading that needle, that is life.
Personally, the big problem I worry about is potential long term physical effect of the virus. Shingles and other virii can fuck people up in later life. Corona looks to have a potential to leave lasting marks, and we won't know for sure how severe, until an entire generation has passed. There's definitely reason to at least hesitate before blindly allowing everyone to get a nice big viral load and get on with it.
