I had tried to say above the fray, but the moral indignation and attack on other's intelligence on this thread is too much.
How can you not see that your distinction is a subjective one and that your moral outrage at people who draw the line in the sand somewhere else is not based in any objective fact?
Let's take automobile accidents - 30K+ a year die in accidents every year, for the mere convenience of us getting somewhere fast and conveniently. Surely we could save lives (including lives of others) by simply outlawing non-essential driving and limiting the speed limit to 10 mph. Should I be morally outraged if you don't support that position? Do you not care about the people's lives you put at risk every time you drive to pick up a non-essential hamburger and fries? How can you justify risking life for that but criticize someone who says they would cruise knowing it could put people's lives at risk?
What about the flu? Sure, it is less contagious and less deadly to certain people (not all), but do you still visit parks and cruise during flu season? What about that tens or thousands of people who die from it each year? Do you care about the CM's lives you are putting at risk?
A response that less people die from the flu or car accidents is an arbitrary distinction to make. Because you are still making a risk assessment and drawing the line somewhere, at the risk of other people's lives. That distinction can't be anything but subjective. To criticize the intelligence or ethics of someone who says a risk of say, three or even four times that of the flu, is justified after weighing the pros and cons of lockdowns or complete cessation of an industry in a manner that has never happened in our entire modern history, is absolutely perplexing (and yes, we have had similar pandemics that were similar to this one in danger per capita, and the Spanish Flu was ridiculously more dangerous, yet we didn't have long-term and widespread lockdowns). Saying the risk is acceptable for these (and many other risky actions) is justifiable, but cruising or visiting the parks is not, is not based in any objective logic and is purely an emotional argument without more.
And that gets at the biggest issue of all. Where were the policy debates, the weighing of pros and cons, the hearing from experts in a diverse array of fields? That is what should have happened in a democracy after the initial emergency had passed. An entire industry shouldn't have been closed for months on end without more of that.
First, yes, both those actions can and do kill other people. You can outlaw drinking and driving all you want, but a certain percentage of drinkers will always do it. But, see above for other examples where your actions, taken merely for the enjoyment of life and convenience, put other people's lives at risk. Just because you have made the subjective decision to draw the risk line in another place than someone else, doesn't make you right and them wrong.
But more importantly, more and more evidence is available weekly that long-term lockdowns are causing significant death, suffering, poverty, and loss of the enjoyment of life. There are more important things in life than surviving at any cost. Going out into society will always have some level of risk. I vote for minimizing that risk with common sense safety precautions that allow life to continue mostly as normal and let individuals decide for themselves, knowing there is a virus that can be serious and deadly to many. But we at least deserve and open and public debate about what level of risk society is going to take. It shouldn't be decided by experts in one field and the very most risk-adverse among us.
