lives compared to spending that money on long-term medical infrastructure in places with life expectancies below 60 years? Why not help them out with the money instead? Is it about doing the most good for the most people? Or is about doing the most good for the most Americans (if so, this approach is probably still far less efficient than others would be). What if we spent this money on a battle against inactivity and poor diets - the impact on overall health would be far greater. What if we spent it on educational ad campaigns about how to avoid getting and transmitting viruses? What if we spent this money to put a Peloton in every home?

We do have scarce resources. As exciting as it is to get caught up in the news of the day, overall there are usually better ways we could be expending our scarce resources.