[keiferski]

This kind of opinion is predicated on a utilitarian ethical viewpoint. I.e., it's okay to do wrong to a small number of people if it benefits the overwhelming majority of people.

There are plenty of other ethical approaches, many of which would say that the upholding of certain rights is more important than any benefits gained from violating them.

[NotAnEconomist]

To concur:

It's not merely predicated on a utilitarian ethical viewpoint, it assumes that we've accurately accounted for costs of the options (eg, second and third order effects) when deciding rather than merely justifying our preferences with biased models.

Empirically, the second (biased models) happens considerably more often than the first (accurate accounting) -- to the point that even if you're a utilitarian, you have to admit it doesn't work in practice. You simply can't make the required benefit calculations for utilitarianism.

This is something businesses get wrong a lot: their numerical justification is actually a reflection of the biases of their staff, rather than an accurate accounting of the options.

[Tainnor]

The counterpoint to this is that you can't just wait forever before making a decision. At some point, you'll have to do with imprecise data, and for a pandemic that is developing very rapidly, you can't just sit back and do nothing (well you can, but then you have to make an argument for why this is a good option).

As to the point of whether utilitarianism is a good ethical framework... well, at least no non-consequentialist ethical framework has ever convinced me. A naïve reading of utilitarianism has its problems, of course, but those can be accounted for; but the classical Kantian conundrum of not being allowed to lie to a murderer seems silly to me. Plus saying "principles matter" has just as many problems as the utilitarian approach, as nobody will be able to agree on those principles.