Should an economy serve humanity or should humanity serve the economy? It's largely a moral choice, but how a population answers it determines their political response
Humanity is economy, no money on the table means no food and no shelter.
When I use the word, I'm talking something a more to do with the systems of trade of goods and services, currency, etc. - the health of such systems are the concern of many anti-lockdown proponents.
The government stepping in and saying "NOPE! WE KNOW BEST!" and then basically forcing every citizen to restructure their lives for something that couldn't even remotely be contained just shows the abuse of power. Even among private institutions. Look how many took advantage of the government PPP loans or outright laid off workers just for the hell of it.
The majority of the COVID deaths can be attributed to the old, obese, and sickly people. But most institutions serve people outside of that set. But because we have to protect the already dying, lets shut down everything and make life miserable for everyone! Lets not just tell these people to stay inside and be shut ins even though we could've!
Because everyone knew everything in early 2020. Epidemiologists weren't sure about the details of the virus, its spread and how to contain it, but you can retrospectively claim that it couldn't be contained and it didn't make sense to try? Maybe you should revisit the statistics and reporting from Italy or any of the other highly impacted countries early on, the ones with the military hospitals, makeshift morgues, military run hearses and crematoriums, doctors having to choose who has a higher chance of survival under care and take them in, refusing the others.
> But most institutions serve people outside of that set
No, most institutions serve everybody. In countries with older populations, like Italy, Spain or Portugal, or countries with high percentage of obese or sickly people like the US or Mexico, are you really advocating that they should have sacrificed even 5-10%, or even more of their populations so that... The others could go to the cinema or restaurant? People like you are cold as fuck.
Sounds like a problem with the economy. Economies are human constructs. With enough consensus they can be shaped in different ways. Quantitive easing is one instrument, but still very much within the rules. The rules can be bent further with consensus
> The government stepping in and saying "NOPE! WE KNOW BEST!" and then basically forcing every citizen to restructure their lives for something that couldn't even remotely be contained just shows the abuse of power.
Mask mandates and lockdowns in some western democracies outside of the US have worked exceedingly well, but they by-in-large had less quarrelsome (and smaller) populations
> The majority of the COVID deaths can be attributed to the old, obese, and sickly people. But most institutions serve people outside of that set.
It seems you largely agree that there's a moral dimension here. You may not agree there's malleability to how an economy functions - but once again, economies are a part of the social compact. If people decide that their parents, their kids' grandparents, the immunocompromised, etc. are worth saving, they may hold a different view than sheer social darwinism
It is true that the majority of COVID deaths are among the population that one government called "life unworthy of life." But the decision to let them die off for the greater good is, itself, a form of saying "Nope, we know best." When a pandemic hits, you don't get to not choose a response.