The Struggle Between Saving Lives and Societal Impact in Crisis Management
The familiar dilemmas surrounding pandemic management continue to challenge decision-makers. Should we enforce strict lockdowns or keep businesses open? If lockdowns are necessary, what sectors of the economy should be prioritized for reopening? And what about schools, religious gatherings, or cultural and sports venues?
At the heart of these questions lies a recurring dilemma: is it worth risking economic or social harm to save lives from Covid-19? While most discussions center on economic damage—since it’s more quantifiable—less tangible consequences, such as the impact on religious communities, students, or access to the arts, complicate this calculation. Furthermore, the moral complexity increases with a fundamental question: Are all lives equally valuable, or do some lives deserve more protection than others?
This debate has occupied economists, epidemiologists, and lockdown critics alike throughout the past year. Yet, some experts argue that such calculations are not suitable in an emergency like a pandemic. Yaneer Bar-Yam, a physicist and president of the New England Complex Systems Institute, believes the focus is misplaced. He compares it to the distraction tactics used by magicians, suggesting that society is looking in the wrong direction at the expense of more critical questions.
Perhaps it’s time to step back and reconsider the broader implications of our choices.
It’s not surprising that pandemic-related decisions are framed as cost-benefit analyses. When Lord Sumption, a retired Supreme Court judge, suggested that some lives might be more valuable than others, it sparked significant backlash. However, governments routinely make such value judgments—for instance, when determining whether to approve new medical treatments. As economist Julian Jessop points out, we all face similar choices in our daily lives. Most people would likely reject the notion of spending £10bn to save one life. And when asked whether to save a healthy child or an elderly person in a lifeboat, many would instinctively choose the child. “It’s about distributing limited resources in the most equitable way,” Jessop concludes.
