We live in an interesting time where it's an instinct to say 'Sure 45k people die each year from this, but how does that benchmark?'
Even if Germany had a 40x higher/lower rate than the US, why does it matter when people are still needlessly dying?
We live in an interesting time where it's an instinct to say 'Sure 45k people die each year from this, but how does that benchmark?'
Even if Germany had a 40x higher/lower rate than the US, why does it matter when people are still needlessly dying?
That leads me to the heart of your comment. Sure you could institute some kind of dystopian dictatorship that makes sure nobody dies of the causes we deem preventable now. But it would be a cure that kills the patient (free society).
So, there are always trade offs. What I was saying is that looking at other countries and what they've done you can see the trade offs in advance and decide if they're worth it.
>So, there are always trade offs. What I was saying is that looking at other countries and what they've done you can see the trade offs in advance and decide if they're worth it.
I'm struggling to follow your point here. Your argument is any country should only try things other countries have already tried?
Doesn't that get us into a loop of sorts? How did those countries get to the better/worse point without doing things on their own?