COVID-19: Are government resources better spent on public health or stimulating the economy?

Needs of a minority can't outweigh the future of a nation

Question: COVID-19: Are government resources better spent on public health or stimulating the economy?
Position‹2 of 3›: Government resources are better spent on economic growth
Argument1 of 2›: Needs of a minority can't outweigh the future of a nation

Either way sacrifices will have to be made; the greater good should come first.

The argument

It is outrageous that the needs of a minority, who make no contribution to the economy, should be considered more important than those of the nation. The economic impact of the virus could be so great that those not yet born may still be living with the consequences. The draconian measures that are currently in place serve no one but the elderly and those with existing conditions. Why? The virus is much more dangerous for the sick and the old; these groups should be willing to sacrifice their lives for the sake of their children, grandchildren, and the Land of the Free.

Context

The US government is calling current lockdown measures the '15 day challenge', with President Trump suggesting that closed businesses will be able to reopen from Easter.

Premises

[P1]Proponents argue the economic damage of pandemic restrictions could burden even those not yet born, while the virus is far more dangerous to the old and the already-sick. [P2] On this view, the needs of that smaller, more vulnerable group should not outweigh the economic future of the whole nation. [C] Therefore, proponents conclude that government resources are better spent on economic growth than on broad protective measures.

Counter-arguments

Coronavirus affects people of all ages. As it spreads, we are witnessing increasing numbers of cases amongst the young - many of which result in death. If this is about self-sacrifice, it is so across all demographics. The subsequent harm to the working and able population will be more damaging to the economy than maintaining lockdown. Moreover, '[the right to] life' is an essential part of the US Constitution. Enacting laws that would knowingly, and unnecessarily, put it at risk, are a violation of the principles of state.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The framing is wrong on its own terms. Older people and those with chronic conditions are not a discrete minority standing outside the economy — they include workers, carers, taxpayers and business owners, and a large share of working-age adults in wealthy countries have a condition that raised their risk. Nor was the harm confined to them: the counter-argument notes serious illness and death among younger people, and lasting impairment in the working-age population is itself an economic cost. [Rejecting P2] The argument treats the choice as a straight trade of lives against output, which the evidence does not support: uncontrolled transmission suppresses economic activity on its own through absence, illness and voluntary withdrawal, and an overwhelmed health service imposes costs on everyone who needs care for anything. The closing move — that the old and the sick "should be willing to sacrifice their lives" — is not an argument but the assignment of a duty to die, made on behalf of people who were not asked and nowhere justified. As the counter-argument observes, a policy that knowingly and avoidably costs citizens their lives is not a neutral accounting decision.