Originally Posted by
Tucknroll
pretty callous mate.
Not at all. Realistic, and financially responsible, I would argue. There comes a point at which we, as a people, have said "enough is enough", which in turn gives the answer to your question below:
Originally Posted by Tucknnroll
whats a life worth then?
$50? $100? $10,000?
As of August, 2019, the average
"Healthy adult, with 40 years ahead of them" was valued at
$4,900,000 AUD. Call it a round $5.0M in 2021 dollars. That's not a figure I've plucked out of my asre - that is the
official "Value of a Statistical Life" from the
Department of Prime Minister & Cabinet, and is used to judge everything from "Do we build a new bridge to save that hazardous water crossing?" to "Will we make this an AD or is it 'acceptable' to kill 'x' number of passengers because it'll cost too much?"
It is not a new concept!
But...The concept itself has been thrown out the window for Covid, with no explanation given as to why it is now deemed ok to spend double, maybe triple that amount to save a significant number of people who, rightly or wrongly, wouldn't even be
valued at that $5.0M figure due to their age.
Originally Posted by Tucknroll
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.
No, it
isn't. If you allow emotions to cloud your judgement when dealing with decisions such as that, you do what ScoMo, et al have done. Run up a massive bill, or expend enormous resources for no significant benefit as opposed to making a rational, informed judgement.
Originally Posted by Tucknroll
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.
Then take some responsibility for your
own health. If you don't want to run the risk of Covid, wear a mask, wash your hands, carry your own sanitizer, and do what you can to minimize
your risk, instead of expecting
society to do so for you.