I think we should consider such arguments — but we must consider their inverse: what happens when they’re wrong or abusive?
And we’ve seen that answer during COVID: those tools will be used to silence qualified scientists engaged in civil debate by bureaucrats enforcing their preferred choice — an act of totalitarianism. That will lead to loss of life as QALY negative treatments are enforced with the might of the state.
There’s around 7,000 deaths per year in NZ (based on a quick Google) and the non-COVID death spike has averaged 10% for two years — so about 1,400 people.
Censorship then comes down to a question:
Do we prevent 28 Christchurch shootings for every COVID-style bureaucratic fuckup?
And we’ve seen that answer during COVID: those tools will be used to silence qualified scientists engaged in civil debate by bureaucrats enforcing their preferred choice — an act of totalitarianism. That will lead to loss of life as QALY negative treatments are enforced with the might of the state.
There’s around 7,000 deaths per year in NZ (based on a quick Google) and the non-COVID death spike has averaged 10% for two years — so about 1,400 people.
Censorship then comes down to a question:
Do we prevent 28 Christchurch shootings for every COVID-style bureaucratic fuckup?
I’m not sure it’s entirely obvious either way.