[elzbardico]

150 deaths is statistically insignificant on this scenario and actual a very good evidence the current policy is working.

It is hard for some people to have the emotional maturity to understand this, but we can't fucking prevent every fucking death. We will all fucking die sooner or later, too.

You have absolutely no objective reason to suppose that changing this policy would have prevented this, not to mention the risk of making things worse.

[SR2Z]

People will always die, but almost all of them will die in ways that are PREVENTABLE.

[elzbardico]

But the paradox is, all of them will die and not all preventions are Pareto efficient.

I can keep an old decrepit rich guy living a miserable life for some more 6 months at the same cost that would take to me to improve the life expectancy of some 100 poor babies a few decades.

I can try save a bunch of fat very-sick boomers from a respiratory infection at the cost of causing an economic crisis that will completely fuck a lot of young people too for decades ahead. Was it fucking worth?

[SR2Z]

The amount of flying that people do is not constant; if lots of airplanes fall out of the sky and explode in fiery wrecks, people will fly less.

In this case, "lots" is "anything more than once a month" because footage of the above is addictive to anyone trying to make money from the news. Look at how many flights there are a day. How high can the crash rate be until those pictures are seared into our eyeballs?

It's actually funny you bring up COVID, because I agree with you that the restrictions were... not good. I also think that the FAA could use a lighter touch on just about everything, EXCEPT the level of safety it requires from Part 121 operators.

[rcxdude]

The question is which ones are preventable in advance without causing other deaths.