Originally Posted by
Lead Balloon
So the little old lady sitting alone and freezing in her home, who'd rather go to the warm shopping centre to meet her friends and take the risk of contracting C-19, would be 'sentenced to death' if she made that choice? If yes, presumably it would be her doing the sentencing? I know what my dearly-departed Granny would have said and done about all this. Her life; her choice.
But back to the point you keep avoiding.
Would you advocate that our society spend - let's pluck $100 Billion - to save one innocent life? Yes or no.
Would you advocate that our society spend $100 Billion to save two innocent lives? Yes or no.
Three? Yes or no.
If you've answered 'yes' to all of the above, we'll have to agree to disagree.
If you've answered 'no' to all of the above, what is the number at which your answer changes from a 'no' to a 'yes' and what is the basis for the change at that number?
We as a society make decisions about how much to sacrifice to save lives, all day, every day. That's why we have a road toll. It could be zero, but the cost of making it zero outweigh the astronomic costs of doing it. We could build unsinkable ships and uncrashable aircraft. We could put every life-saving drug on the pharmaceutical benefits list.
pretty callous mate.
whats a life worth then?
$50? $100? $10,000?
how much money would you want the government to spend if it was spending it to save your child’s life?
It’s different when it’s not a faceless person.
And your granny wouldn’t have just been risking herself, she would be risking others. So I don’t care too much for the ‘my life, my choice’ idea.