Saving Lives?

Saving Lives?

We heard it from Andrew Cuomo, governor of New York, and plenty of people since then:

If we save even one life with all these draconian measures, it will have been worthwhile.

Well, ol’ Woods is here to throw cold water on that.

Here are two recent items:

(1) The UK’s Sunday Express — so not exactly an obscure dispatch — reports that increased cancer fatalities will result from the redeployment of health resources caused by COVID hysteria. In fact, says Richard Sullivan, a professor of cancer and global health at King’s College London and director of its Institute of Cancer Policy, “The number of deaths due to the disruption of cancer services is likely to outweigh the number of deaths from the coronavirus itself.”

“The cessation and delay of cancer care will cause considerable avoidable suffering. Cancer screening services have stopped, which means we will miss our chance to catch many cancers when they are treatable and curable, such as cervical, bowel and breast.”

“When we do restart normal service delivery after the lockdown is lifted, the backlog of cases will be a huge challenge to the healthcare system.”

(2) Reuters reported this week on a UN report warning that “economic hardship experienced by families as a result of the global economic downturn could result in hundreds of thousands of additional child deaths in 2020, reversing the last 2 to 3 years of progress in reducing infant mortality within a single year.”

The report further warned that 42 million to 66 million children could fall into extreme poverty as a result of the crisis.

(For the tone deaf: I place no confidence in the UN. I cite them to show that these predictions aren’t coming from right-wing theories and are therefore more difficult to dismiss.)

Well, how about that: the world isn’t as cartoonish as Team Apocalypse thinks. Shutting down the world, coupled with demands that we accept living like vegetables as the “new normal,” has consequences.

It isn’t just that we want to go out and get a haircut, as these geniuses keep saying.

It’s that we’re against destruction.

And that we realize there are often additional consequences, beyond the immediate, to the kinds of approaches states have been taking.

The latest gimmick from Team Apocalypse is to ask, “Would you take a handful of jelly beans from a bowl of 100 in which one was poisoned?” This is supposed to show me that cowering in my house is the only rational response to the virus.

My reply:

The case is being framed like this: “Would you reach in and take something if there was a chance it was poison?” Well, it depends on what I would suffer if I didn’t reach in.

The people using this analogy are misleadingly suggesting that my only possible concern is the virus. But I have other concerns, too — namely, not spending months and possibly years living like a vegetable. When I reach into the bowl, they are suggesting that this is the equivalent of returning to normal life, and taking a risk. But yes, I am prepared to take that risk because I want to live a life that’s worth living.

If the jelly beans represent everything I’ve worked for my whole life, if they represent financial solvency, if they represent all my hopes, dreams, and aspirations, you’d better believe I would grab that handful and eat them without the slightest hesitation.

I covered these and other issues in the most recent episode of the Tom Woods Show, which I’m happy to say tens of thousands of libertarians have made a part of their daily routine.