An important aspect of this is that it involves a tradeoff between a sacred value (preventing death) and a secular value (avoiding restrictions). When it’s not socially acceptable to have a frank discussion of the real costs and benefits of various restrictions, it becomes easier for people who oppose the restrictions to pretend that the benefits of the restrictions don’t exist (aka the disease isn’t real or isn’t serious).
When it’s not socially acceptable to have a frank discussion of the real costs and benefits of various restrictions, it becomes easier for people who oppose the restrictions to pretend that the benefits of the restrictions don’t exist (aka the disease isn’t real or isn’t serious).
also applies this way:
When it’s not socially acceptable to have a frank discussion of the real costs and benefits of various restrictions, it becomes easier for people who support the restrictions to pretend that the costs of the restrictions don’t exist (aka that restrictions to freedom aren’t real or serious).
I think both are great points that complete each other.
Even aside the sacred/secular dichotomy, you still need to be able set an exchange rate between different things (mental health, economic damage, hospitalisations, deaths) to establish whether lockdowns are nett negative .
Or you could just state your conclusions without showing any workings like the OP did .
An important aspect of this is that it involves a tradeoff between a sacred value (preventing death) and a secular value (avoiding restrictions). When it’s not socially acceptable to have a frank discussion of the real costs and benefits of various restrictions, it becomes easier for people who oppose the restrictions to pretend that the benefits of the restrictions don’t exist (aka the disease isn’t real or isn’t serious).
Freedom is a sacred value for many people as well.
How often do people talk about tradeoffs between multiple sacred values?
I think he means that your argument:
also applies this way:
When it’s not socially acceptable to have a frank discussion of the real costs and benefits of various restrictions, it becomes easier for people who support the restrictions to pretend that the costs of the restrictions don’t exist (aka that restrictions to freedom aren’t real or serious).
I think both are great points that complete each other.
Even aside the sacred/secular dichotomy, you still need to be able set an exchange rate between different things (mental health, economic damage, hospitalisations, deaths) to establish whether lockdowns are nett negative .
Or you could just state your conclusions without showing any workings like the OP did .