the fallacy is couching it that way. no one says “it’s harmless!”, but rather, they ask “is this more or less dangerous, and is it more or less costly?” so it’s absolutely a credible gauge of risk, or more colloquially, a bar. that’s how we figure out an appropriate response, by looking at what we’ve done in similar situations.
and yes, it absolutely sucks that we accept a million deaths a year worldwide due to cars. same for the flu. we should absolutely try to raise that bar.
I completely agree. I often use the car accidents as a statistical bar. Its really a big part of what made me realize how serious covid19 would be if we didn't adjust pretty aggressively. The numbers really could have eclipsed car deaths and that is already a huge number.
I don't think that is going to happen now, though, thankfully.
I don't think it's a good gauge, because established variables are never evaluated the same way as new variables.
This is true in many fields. For example, if you said 30 years ago that everyone should carry all the counter-privacy implications of a smartphone in their pockets at all times, how do you think people would react?
Is it reasonable to expect people to freak out en masse about it today? No it's not. Why is a bigger question but i suspect you instinctively know that I'm correct here.
Does that mean smartphones are a net good on privacy? No. The negatives still exist even if people accept them.
Does that mean the negatives outweigh the good, and we should all throw away our smartphones? No, I don't think so either. The positives are massive. But introducing them today would give us the opportunity to address the privacy issues ahead of time.
and yes, it absolutely sucks that we accept a million deaths a year worldwide due to cars. same for the flu. we should absolutely try to raise that bar.