112 online
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 45 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds    H2'ed 8/25/21

The Bizarre Refusal to Apply Cost-Benefit Analysis to COVID Debates

By       (Page 1 of 2 pages)   52 comments
Message Glenn Greenwald
Become a Fan
  (149 fans)

Reprinted from greenwald.substack.com

Doctor with a blackboard and message Home Schooling
Doctor with a blackboard and message Home Schooling
(Image by focusonmore.com)
  Details   DMCA

In virtually every realm of public policy, Americans embrace policies which they know will kill people, sometimes large numbers of people. They do so not because they are psychopaths but because they are rational: they assess that those deaths that will inevitably result from the policies they support are worth it in exchange for the benefits those policies provide. This rational cost-benefit analysis, even when not expressed in such explicit or crude terms, is foundational to public policy debates - except when it comes to COVID, where it has been bizarrely declared off-limits.

The quickest and most guaranteed way to save hundreds of thousands of lives with policy changes would be to ban the use of automobiles, or severely restrict their usage to those authorized by the state on the ground of essential need (e.g., ambulances or food-delivery vehicles), or at least lower the nationwide speed limit to 25 mph. Any of those policies would immediately prevent huge numbers of human beings from dying. Each year, according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), "1.35 million people are killed on roadways around the world," while "crashes are a leading cause of death in the United States for people aged 1-54." Even with seat belts and airbags, a tragic number of life-years are lost given how many young people die or are left permanently and severely disabled by car accidents. Studies over the course of decades have demonstrated that even small reductions in speed limits save many lives, while radical reductions - supported by almost nobody - would eliminate most if not all deaths from car crashes.

a.image2.image-link.image2-924-1344 { padding-bottom: 68.75%; padding-bottom: min(68.75%, 924px); width: 100%; height: 0; } a.image2.image-link.image2-924-1344 img { max-width: 1344px; max-height: 924px; } Center for Disease Control, 2020

Given how many deaths and serious injuries would be prevented, why is nobody clamoring for a ban on cars, or at least severe restrictions on who can drive (essential purposes only) or how fast (25 mph)? Is it because most people are just sociopaths who do not care about the huge number of lives lost by the driving policies they support, and are perfectly happy to watch people die or be permanently maimed as long as their convenience is not impeded? Is it because they do not assign value to the lives of other people, and therefore knowingly support policies - allowing anyone above 15 years old to drive, at high speeds - that will kill many children along with adults?

Click Here to Read Whole Article