They Are Not Expendable

From Talkingpointsmemo:

For weeks, as the novel coronavirus has spread across the globe and infected hundreds of thousands of people, there have been the skeptics — those who say “social distancing,” while proven to slow the spread of COVID-19 and save lives, isn’t worth the economic cost.

President Donald Trump has leaned into that view lately, becoming its most high-profile proponent. “We’re not going to let the cure be worse than the problem,” he said at a press briefing Monday. Later, referring to social distancing, he added that there would be “probably more death from that than anything we’re talking about with respect to the virus.”

TPM then goes on to list some politicians/pundits who agree with the orange vulgarity that sacrificing a few million American citizens in order for the rest of (one hopes) us to have a healthier economy sooner is justified.

For example:

On Sunday night, Fox News host Steve Hilton said it was easy for the U.S. government’s top infectious disease expert Anthony Fauci to encourage “overreacting” to COVID-19 — because “he’ll still have a job at the end of this, whatever happens.”

“Our ruling class and their TV mouthpieces whipping up fear over this virus, they can afford an indefinite shutdown,” Hilton, a former advisor to British Prime Minister David Cameron, said. “Working Americans can’t, they’ll be crushed by it. You know that famous phrase, ‘The cure is worse than the disease’? That is exactly the territory we are hurtling towards.”

This is the phrase to look for:

We can't let the cure be worse than the disease.

Which is exactly what Trump ALL CAPS! tweeted a few days ago:

WE CANNOT LET THE CURE BE WORSE THAN THE PROBLEM ITSELF. AT THE END OF THE 15 DAY PERIOD, WE WILL MAKE A DECISION AS TO WHICH WAY WE WANT TO GO!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 23, 2020

He's looking to end the social distancing guidelines in order to somehow get the economy rolling again (which, he hopes, will look oh-so good for his re-election). A few million deaths?

Back to TPM:

In perhaps the harshest rendition of this argument, one that’s since been erased from the internet, the California attorney Scott A. McMillan tweeted about the “fundamental problem” of social distancing for the sake of the sick and vulnerable.

“The fundamental problem is whether we are going to tank the entire economy to save 2.5% of the population which is (1) generally expensive to maintain, and (2) not productive,” he wrote, soliciting a barrage of criticism for effectively waiving away the deaths of eight million people.

That's the question over there - whether it's worth saving eight million people if it means losing lots and lots of money.

Haven't these folks been calling themselves "pro-life" for...um...EVER?

Locally, guess who retweeted Trump's ALL CAPS! tweet?

Sean Parnell, pro-life Republican candidate looking to run against Representative Conor Lamb:

Does Candidate Sean Parnell think that doing everything we can to save as many people as we can now is actually WORSE than loosening those social distancing guidelines (and thus letting the virus spread further and faster?)

I'll let New York Governor Cuomo sum up the counter argument:

My mother is not expendable and your mother is not expendable and our brothers and sisters are not expendable and we’re not going to accept a premise that human life is disposable and we’re not going to put a dollar figure on human life.

Anything to say, Sean?