This is simply illustrative of the fact people are driven by self-interest, and virtually never take group outcomes into consideration when making choices unless forced to under the threat of violence.
Or they simply have a different level of risk tolerance than you. I'm comfortable going out to eat. I live alone, the only people I physically interact with these days are all under the age of 28, anyone in a risk group that I would interact with is back home a thousand or so miles away.
> virtually never take group outcomes into consideration when making choices unless forced to under the threat of violence.
Group outcomes are effectively a moot point. That presumes that the group, as a whole, has an agreed upon preferential outcome, and an agreed upon means of getting there. We do not (and basically never do, when it comes to the group). Some people want more stringent lockdowns, some people just want the lockdowns to be lifted. People who want more stringent lockdowns are averse to the risk of COVID, and are willing to sacrifice some of the joy of life to avoid it. People who want to lift the lockdowns are unperturbed by the risk, or are okay with allowing people to assume that risk to be able to go on with their lives. I don't see a clear winner from a utilitarian perspective; either really bad things happen to a small ratio of people, or mildly bad things happen to everyone. I certainly don't think the gap in net happiness is wide enough to warrant condescension about people ignoring group outcomes.
I think it's fair to say the Covid-free world of 2019 is preferable to the Covid-endemic world of 2020.
Melbourne AU — which is comparable to many European and American cities — eradicated Covid after 4 months of hard lockdown [1] combined with federal financial support.
Covid is the "endemic malaria problem" of 2020: just like malaria can be eradicated through water management, Covid can be eradicated through Australian-style government intervention. Today, both diseases are problems with clear and proven solutions.
you have to show what is specific self-interest here and how it conflicts with specific group outcome. Otherwise it is just an old Soviet style propaganda where people were coerced into doing senseless things because of supposed great common good.
> virtually never take group outcomes into consideration when making choices unless forced to under the threat of violence.
Group outcomes are effectively a moot point. That presumes that the group, as a whole, has an agreed upon preferential outcome, and an agreed upon means of getting there. We do not (and basically never do, when it comes to the group). Some people want more stringent lockdowns, some people just want the lockdowns to be lifted. People who want more stringent lockdowns are averse to the risk of COVID, and are willing to sacrifice some of the joy of life to avoid it. People who want to lift the lockdowns are unperturbed by the risk, or are okay with allowing people to assume that risk to be able to go on with their lives. I don't see a clear winner from a utilitarian perspective; either really bad things happen to a small ratio of people, or mildly bad things happen to everyone. I certainly don't think the gap in net happiness is wide enough to warrant condescension about people ignoring group outcomes.