8 ms·
> how many of the 0.3% were due to die in the next few years because of existing health conditions? “They were going to die anyways!” was always a common argum
by hoorible 3y ago
> how many of the 0.3% were due to die in the next few years because of existing health conditions?
“They were going to die anyways!” was always a common argument one among the “muh freedoms!” crowd. When someone dies in a car crash, we don’t just shrug it off if the victim was terminally ill. Why is this different? A preventable death is still a preventable death and their life still has value whether it’s for another 20 years or 20 days.
- LouisSayers 3y agoTechnically, everyone is "going to die anyways"... What I'm asking is what the percentage difference is, of those that are not vulnerable - which is still a valid question to be asking.
- pessimizer 3y ago> their life still has value whether it’s for another 20 years or 20 days. This is avoiding the question by being emotive and vague. Would you trade the life of somebody who had 30 years more to live for the life of someone who had 30 seconds to live? Why or why not?
- hoorible 3y agoNot giving a direct answer to a question isn’t the same as avoiding it; it’s asked disingenuously, so the actual answer doesn’t matter. Just like your follow up question, which is similarly irrelevant, since changing behaviours to save lives isn’t at all the same as trading lives.