Granted. However, a simple tenet of society is keeping it's population safe from harm, so it grieves as a whole for deaths which are considered unnecessary, cruel, or due to preventable actions. The 9/11 victims, for example, or kids gunned down in their school.

Many epidemic victim deaths could have been prevented with adequate preparation, so we should grieve for our failure to keep them safe. And I think funneling that grief into a call to action is appropriate.

@Lauren I notice the funneling of that grief/anger toward politicians seems to be what is happening, but only toward those politicians for whom one didn’t vote.

The hardest hit parts of the country are governed almost entirely by Democrats, but the press is presenting those politicians as superior in wisdom and foresight and having the intelligence to lead their constituents to safety.

Meanwhile there are daily dire warnings about how the South and other areas are going to be torn apart through the inept actions of Republicans—how that they were slow to take action and are opening up too soon. That despite the fact that every state is opening up.

Frankly, I don’t think government could have done much differently that would have lessened the staggering loss of life. We’ve suffered the loss of three one hundredths of one percent of our citizens. OMG

Many of those would not have lived much longer anyway. What would we do if struck with a real epidemic—one that killed from three to nine percent, as did epidemics of old?

@WilliamFleming

Wow. First, I blame all politicians. They are, after all, the ones in charge. But mostly the ones at the highest levels who refused to act logically when they first heard of this illness (and they got the news first), and then proceeded to secretly secure their own financial future while the country dissolved into disarray.

I’m sure you have all the data available to you so I won’t list it, but yes: locking down the country and providing widespread testing would have gone a long way to suffocating the virus as it spread, this saving lives. This is basic stuff. Not new or experimental.

As to your view of the value of those not physically able to withstand the illness, I think that’s pretty heartless, but you’re entitled to feel that way. We don’t know how many will ultimately lose their lives, but they aren’t all the weak ones you’re willing to cull easily from the flock. We may hit three to nine percent yet. So is your grief threshold hitting that percentage, or when the right percentage of young, healthy people die, or do you not feel any grief at all?

@Lauren Grief is illogical. Of course if I lose someone close I would grieve, and I empathize with anyone who has such a loss. Grief is illogical but as a human I am sometimes illogical. I did not say anything about the value of those not able to withstand the disease. I am talking about the inevitability of death and how we can not live in constant sorrow.

I am pointing out also the silliness of articles like this, where some pompous elitist tries to shepherd the public into certain political directions by appealing to fear and guilt. I’m not buying it. I refuse to do as told by such people.

I myself am 77, and though healthy I might very well die from the Coronavirus. I’ve already lived a longer life than my father and both my grandfathers. I’ve had a good life, and if it’s time to move on then so be it.

That leads into another issue. Human bodies have little value. Our sense of self as a separate body is only illusion, but there is great value—infinite value in the continuum of life within nature and the consciousness of that continuum.

As the Bhagavad Gita says, “They were not born and they will not die”.