argument top image

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

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.
< (1 of 2) Next argument >


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.

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.

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


This page was last edited on Friday, 17 Apr 2020 at 11:12 UTC

Explore related arguments