You and shack appear to be of the belief that short term gain (mini vacation with government money that will need to be paid back one way or another) for long term pain is the best way forward. It's not.
What long term pain? Fewer people suffering & or dying in car accidents? Less poor quality air due to the absence of air & road vehicles & factories pumping out shit? Less disease (with the associated illnesses & deaths) being transported to every nation on the planet due to planes being grounded?
Did you watch the video above? If we want nobody to die from car crashes we would reduce the speed limit on all highways to 30km/hr.
Yes, i watched the interesting video. Thank you. It opined that road fatalities would be eliminated at a speed of 5km/hr.
If we want nobody to die from car crashes we would reduce the speed limit on all highways to 30km/hr. We'd be safe, but the economy would suffer. This is the kind of cost/benefit analysis we do as a society all the time. Likewise shutting down global economies because 0.6% of people might die is inexcusable. You will have more deaths and more suffering and more mental illness by laying waste to the economy than to covid.
I'd suggest that the reason we allow the present speed limits & deaths thereby is not because of the economy but because we value people's individual liberty & their freedom in the pursuit of happiness. So if a person wants to risk their life being seated in a motor vehicle going 50, 100 or 200 km/hr, that's their choice, just as others are at liberty to not do so.
These comments are from a related conversation i had recently (& i quote myself, with my remarks in quotation marks below):
"Government could try to ban all kinds of things to save lives, but they don't, not for the sake of the economy, but because they've sworn an oath to the constitution to uphold individual liberties & the pursuit of happiness, even in cases where people prefer or enjoy higher risk activities or occupations. Occupations such as high rise window cleaning & construction, military service, law enforcement, professional athletes in contact sports, etc. Activities such as skydiving, bunging jumping, mountain & cliff climbing, alcohol use, etc.
As i've said before lowering the speed limit isn't going to stop deaths via people travelling. They'll still die due to travel methods even if cars were completely banned. They'd still die travelling by planes, bicycles, horse riding & walking. So where do you draw the line? How many deaths are acceptable? How low do you reduce the speed limit? And what about people's liberty & freedom in the pursuit of happiness? If people want to risk their lives in motor vehicles, that's their choice & on them. They don't have to. And the government isn't going to force it on them due to the oaths they've taken.
What government has ever stated they've decided to sacrifice lives on the highways so large commercial vehicles can move fast?"
http://www.therxforum.com/showthread.php?t=1155741&page=8&highlight=liberty
Enfuego said:
I'm saying by not lowering the speed limits so save people from dying on the interstates, local/state/federal authorities are telling you overtly lives lost in car accidents are acceptable in order to keep things flowing.
"That's your assumption, pure speculation with absolutely nothing to back it. Far more reasonable & likely is what i've been telling you:
They could try, just as they tried to shutdown the production & sale of alcohol at one point decades ago. Whether or not the people would accept a 10 MPH speed limit is unknown. BTW, other measures are being taken to save lives such as air bags, safer cars, police patrol, loss of licences, banning cars in cities, etc
You introduced car deaths with your analogy with the present COVID-19 crises, which you have long ago given up on arguing.
You also didn't explain the governments contradiction as per:
It's being alleged that governments are secretly conspiring to sacrifice lives to car accidents rather than lower the speed limit to 10 MPH in order to benefit the economy. Yet it is also being alleged these same governments are sacrificing the economy to save lives from dieing from COVID-19. So can't these governments make up their minds? Are they confused. Do they want to save lives or save the economy? Or is it that at least one or both of those allegations is wrong. Where is the evidence that governments have decided to sacrifice innocent children in car accidents in order to boost the economy? Where has any government ever stated anything like that?"
http://www.therxforum.com/showthread.php?t=1155741&page=8&highlight=liberty