> how many of the 0.3% were due to die in the next few years because of existing health conditions?
“They were going to die anyways!” was always a common argument one among the “muh freedoms!” crowd. When someone dies in a car crash, we don’t just shrug it off if the victim was terminally ill. Why is this different? A preventable death is still a preventable death and their life still has value whether it’s for another 20 years or 20 days.
> their life still has value whether it’s for another 20 years or 20 days.
This is avoiding the question by being emotive and vague. Would you trade the life of somebody who had 30 years more to live for the life of someone who had 30 seconds to live? Why or why not?
“They were going to die anyways!” was always a common argument one among the “muh freedoms!” crowd. When someone dies in a car crash, we don’t just shrug it off if the victim was terminally ill. Why is this different? A preventable death is still a preventable death and their life still has value whether it’s for another 20 years or 20 days.