>What we might call civilized societies have however strived to reduce those numbers as much as possible
Unless you're claiming that no civilised society exists, that's not true at all. A civilisation built around minimising death as much as possible would look very differently to any that currently exists.
Resources are always a trade off. People working at those festivals and cinemas could have went in to medical care pre corona virus. People building festival stages and cinemas could have been building hospitals. If festivals and cinemas didn't exist then that would be less driving and less road deaths.
At some level festivals and cinemas existing is putting some peoples fun over others right to life, corona virus or no.
What's reasonable is exactly what's up for debate though and they didn't say "civilisation is 5000 fun utils to 1 QALY saved ratio but doing nothing about corona virus actually costs you 3 QALY for every 5000 fun utils so that's disgusting, what they said was
>It's not fun, but suggesting that your right to fun should trump others' right to life is, again, uncivilized, immoral and irresponsible.
I really don't understand what you're trying to accomplish here: are you seriously asserting "unless you can assign objectively quantifiable values to 'right to fun' and 'right to life' and prove the latter is larger than the former, your argument is invalid?"
The argument was made that "avoiding unnecessary death > fun/comfort things to do". The counter argument was "if that was true, we'd ban lots of things" and that it's more of a question of how many deaths vs how much fun/comfort.
One death a year vs permanent lockdown? We won't lock down. 99% of society dying vs washing your hands once a day? We'll make hand-washing mandatory. The deaths from Covid-19 and the responses to it are somewhere between those extremes.
The important point here is: it's not a matter of moral principles, it's a matter of where on those scales you put the deaths/counter measures. Pretending that it's a moral argument (as in "you're immoral if you accept any amount of unnecessary deaths for non-essential things like going to festivals or having pineapple delivered to your door") is simply not working unless you (demand to) ban plenty of things.
They're not even trying to say that one is larger than the former without objectively quantifying it! That would be a start.
I would like a argument. Any. Instead there's just a bunch of people treating corona virus as this exception where you're sociopath to consider any other facet of life when deciding how to respond to it.
Unless you're claiming that no civilised society exists, that's not true at all. A civilisation built around minimising death as much as possible would look very differently to any that currently exists.
Resources are always a trade off. People working at those festivals and cinemas could have went in to medical care pre corona virus. People building festival stages and cinemas could have been building hospitals. If festivals and cinemas didn't exist then that would be less driving and less road deaths.
At some level festivals and cinemas existing is putting some peoples fun over others right to life, corona virus or no.