*And hang the consequences for those that suffer.
*
Interesting moral territory. How far should we go to alleviate others' suffering, and at what sacrifice to ourselves? To some extent this depends on the efficacy of our actions. We can stay at home, lose our jobs, become unhappier and poorer, and sacrifice our children's education. But how effective is it as a strategy? Somewhat effective. But not entirely so, because community transmission is not the only way for someone to get covid.
And our own demands on the NHS are not reduced by staying in. If we become poorer and less fit, over the long run they will increase.
As ethical conundra, these questions are often phrased as visual scenes -- e.g. the trolley problem. And usually the consequences (eg of pulling a lever) are much clearer than here, where our actions may have little or no effect anyway. Do we have the same responsibility to people we don't know and will never see? If we do, why pre-pandemic were most of us content not to give most all of our income away?
More pressingly, why is the life of one (probably elderly) British person worth more to us than that of thousands of children in other parts of the world dying of hunger and easily curable illnesses? Why is it a better idea to socially distance to prevent the transmission of covid, than to go out to work, make as much money as possible, and give it to children in developing countries whose suffering we can alleviate with simple, tested and cheap interventions?
None of these questions is ethically easy. Anyone who pretends that there's one clear, morally right path isn't thinking hard enough.