Actually, in Kennon's article it's framed by a genie offering us a choice between saving 2.15 million American lives or causing a global economic catastrophe "equal to or worse than the Great Depression."
Claiming the worst case scenario is 2.2 million Americans dead, based on a projection that admits it's not the actual worst case scenario and then offering:
Kennon wrote:We’re talking about condemning nearly the entirety of the world to a generational black hole. We’re talking about tens of millions of children being homeless. Starvation. Endemic poverty with the multi-generational scars that result including addiction, depression, anxiety, heart attack, and suicide. The net harms, and ultimate deaths, are so much worse for humanity than what we are facing from COVID-19, to go down this route would be one of the greatest unforced errors in global history. It would be unbridled madness. I struggle to even wrap my head around the level of narcissism or sociopathy required to suggest such a thing; how a person could be so wicked and monstrous that they would destroy the entirety of Earth, including the lives of their own children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, nieces, nephews, friends, co-workers, and neighbors, not only here in the United States but in Europe, Asia, and Africa.
is inaccurate framing.
Which he uses to infer:
Based on this brilliant analysis he informs us that he will not "support an indefinite shut-down lasting for twelve or sixteen weeks that sent us into a Great Depression." He does support closing the schools for at least six months, mandatorily increasing paid time off, massive bailouts to hospitals, massive spending for medical supplies and temporary hospitals and unionizing doctors (because nurses apparently have it to easy)... We are left to presume he's performed the same rigorous analysis on these sweeping economic and societal changes and that they would not "send us into a Great Depression."Kennon wrote:Make no mistake that if someone claims to support such an action, what they are really saying is, “I would rather have few extra months or years myself, or with my grandma, even if it means I have to kill other people, destroy their lives for the next few decades, and condemn their children to hunger, homelessness, and endless struggle.” Don’t pretend that it’s anything less craven than that. It’s a deeply immoral, selfish position that is cloaking itself in false piousness. I find it disgusting.
Our society is facing a difficult decision where trade offs must be made. The decision would be difficult if we knew what the outcomes were, but it is vastly more difficult in the face of uncertainty. Framing the problem as bounded by two wildly inaccurate payoff schemes and then issuing off-the-cuff policy suggestions isn't helping the situation, it's only adding to the confusion.
Edit: Jacob's above post addresses this in a much more thoughtful, intelligent and interesting way. I'm leaving my post because I enjoy being an asshole to people who write shitty essays on the internet.
One add:
This is what's actually important and what we should actually be talking about. Is this method a good choice in the face of uncertainty? In what cases is it robust and what is it fragile too and are we willing to accept that?
)
