Mrs ERJ had lunch with one of her friends and the friend uttered "...if it saves even one life" to rationalize why shutting down the economy was a needed thing.
Mrs ERJ and I discussed it. It is not the first time we heard that phrase used to justify onerous regulations.
Is it really about saving lives?
I doubt anybody reading this believes all of the regulations around Covid-19 were solely motivated by the desire to save lives. There is a simple test.
Part I: If no cost is too high to save 'even one life' then the person espousing the loss of freedom should be HAPPY to have all vehicle speed limits reduced to 30 mph, even on Interstates. Tell them you are passing around a petition and ask them to sign it.
Part II: If no cost is too high to save 'even one life' then the person who believes such should drive at the minimum posted speed on the freeway and 30 mph on all other roads and they should start RIGHT NOW. Yes, I know this would result in many more accidents but, quite likely, fewer fatalities. Accidents are mere inconveniences and cannot be equated with the loss of even a single life.
The 'no cost too high' is really driven by anxiety about loss-of-control. If they were motivated by an altruistic desire to save 'even one life' regardless of the cost their eyes would light up and they would DEMAND that they be allowed to sign the petition.
The irony is that we have no control over how the other drivers operate their vehicle. Yet, we have normalized that risk. It is the unavoidable cost of going about our lives.
That is what Covid-19 is: It is an unavoidable cost of going about our lives. Efforts to mitigate risk can never eliminate it. Like vehicle traffic, there is a broad sweet-spot where the mix of convenience and risk roughly counterbalance each other. And I don't think a governor has enough information decide where that sweet-spot is for every person.