[ad_1]
Conversation with an economist on the news portal tv3.lt of the “Section of the Day” program.
Is our Government, the ruling coalition, dealing adequately with the COVID-19 crisis? Are we taking the measures we need?
The problem is that the actors you mentioned have very different backgrounds on certain issues. Economists 103 years ago had a well-written book on what to do in cases where society creates externalities, when its actions affect other people. For these reasons, appropriate recipes were given a hundred years ago on what to do with those people who are “bunnies.”
Unfortunately, politicians are frowned upon by all kinds of “loyalists” who talk about human rights, although in this case that talk is not very appropriate, because we are dealing with communicable diseases. Air-drying dryers do not have those rights because other people also have the right to be free from infection.
Our societies are becoming less mature and more like a kind of kindergarten. Politicians do not dare to have real accounts of our actions, that is why some say: yes, you build some kind of herd immunity, it makes me uncomfortable to get vaccinated, let others do it. But when everyone thinks so, it turns out that we are still struggling with a problem for which a medical solution has just been invented.
There are parts of people that “connect” <...> and they pass on the costs of their decisions to the rest of society. Covidium beds aren’t just beds – they require doctors’ attention, they get bogged down in elective surgery. There may even be such a dilemma: one bed remains and two people are transported, one is vaccinated and the other is not vaccinated, which one should be accepted?
Yes indignant The drug will fly at high speed through Gediminas avenue and crash into a pile of cars there, so guess if you have power insurance? This is exactly what I suggest: if a person has no reason not to get vaccinated, they have to pay for their choice. Whether or not she would receive sickness benefits or just have to pay for that bed would be a decision of the adult community.
In your opinion, are we promoting certain human rights violations by introducing stricter restrictions, which Vėgėlė, the president of the Bar Association, called a “coercion mechanism”?
I have repeatedly spoken of those “humanists” who make fun of them. There are economists and “ykanamists” as well as lawyers and “humanists” who greatly reduce the whole field to the individual.
We cannot speak of isolated human rights in the case of communicable diseases. This is some common sense, but lawyers don’t like common sense, they like complicated derivation. If everyone who has not received a fresh croissant in the morning because someone bought it earlier, they start using the terms “apartheid”, “discrimination”, “where are my human rights to the croissant?”, “Genocide”, “holocaust “and all other things, what we have heard in the public space, we will simply devalue concepts.
The question here is much simpler. Your choice is to contribute to the public good or not. If you choose not to do it on purpose, there must be consequences, which are evident in the society of healthy people. Without any “loyalists”, we might realize that there are things we have to do.
It is about creating an adult Lithuania for the future. This is a very good time and a test to see what our society is like right now.
See the full conversation in the video at the beginning of the article.
[ad_2]
