So trashing the world's economy and creating a future generation (current children) who are a deathly afraid of social interactions is somehow desirable?
Uwe: OOOhh.....NO; I most-definitely never said that it was "somhow desirable". I'm suggesting that according to at least one, very intelligent person , it (i.e. risking, not "trashing") might be "necessary"! BIG difference between the 2 x approaches!
In an ideal world it would be great if ALL the medical evidence could be neatly analysed and then a way-forward could be logically chosen based on the greatest efficacy and minimal impact on other societal dimensions - and where there is universal agreement about the chosen solution
However, we aren't dealing with a global (existential, or not) infection that can be neatly confined to the sterile environment of a medical laboratory - and the even if this was possible, the "experts" are far from united about the science for the management of the pandemic
Reading between the lines of the book, Illich is suggesting (I think) that the greatest confounder in how a modern society battles a pandemic isn't the science at all; he suggests that when dealing with the most complex and sophisticated super-organism on this fragile blue planet, satisfying the "soft" (emotional) needs of a contempory community become more important - particularly when the view of that society is that the pandemic threatens its very survival!
My suggestion is that rather than adopting PANDA's views about "nonsense" practices like lock-down and mask-wearing, it's perhaps more instructive to consider if these perceived solutions satisfy broader societal needs - as proposed by Illich?
I'm not proposing that illich has found the answer (I very much doubt that there are simple answers)- I'm just suggesting that the link might be worth considering, maybe?
Don