How to Price a Human Being

That would depend on the situation, and on my role in it. The first thing I'd do would be rustle up more supplies, which is usually possible in real life, unless one is in a refugee camp or a battlefield. Failing that ...

If I were in charge on a large scale, and had access to the right information, I'd probably distribute supplies to the people with the best chance of survival, so as to save the most lives. Now for most illnesses, that means formerly healthy adults -- but there are some that kill prime adults while allowing children or elders to revive. That's a practical approach, maximum effect of limited resources; with a humane benefit, maximum number of lives saved.

If I were in charge on a small scale, or had no discerning information, I'd probably assign supplies on a first-come, first-served basis. Supplies last as long as they last, and when they run out, that's it. This is fair. It has the advantage of being less likely to cause arguments, though you'd better be prepared to bar the doors when supplies do run out. You'll save what lives you can before then.

A more compassionate approach would be to direct supplies toward the most vulnerable members first, usually children, elderly, and anyone else weakened. I'm less likely to go for that, because it really really tends to start fights, and fights tend to run down supplies. But there are times when it's the best call: if the illness kills the weak disproportionately, but the strong can fight through, then direct the supplies towards giving the weakest victims a boost. It'll save more lives that way.

There's often a balance between what is practical (what will maximize the number of lives saved) vs. what is considered moral (which varies by culture over time). Plus you have to factor in what is safe to do; i.e. if you stand by and let a bunch of children die, the chance rapidly increases that a parent will murder you or your staff. So if you want to survive, you have to factor in what people will put up with, or else be prepared to direct a mob towards whoever shorted your supplies, or kill them before they kill you. And the latter rather undermines your numbers in terms of keeping people alive, and your score on maintaining a sane society.

A lot depends on your goals, your materials, your data, and your personnel. Rules that fail to consider those factors are likely to give wrong directions at inopportune times.

Emergency personnel check! Are there other elders in this population who can fill the elder role, if all of these die? Because if not, chances are there go all the people who have made peace with death and would be best able to help others cope with the massive amount of it that is about to arrive?

I know, America treats elders like kleenex, but that's because America is stupid this decade. We need elders. This is exactly the kind of situation we need them most.

Regardless of other aspects, if I were considering a category sort, I'd be reluctant to dispense entirely with any one category. I'm too aware of the importance of diversity. As soon as you throw something out, you're sure to need it.

You made good arguments for much of your distribution though.

>>I, of course, asked him if he'd ever thought about the fact that caring for him
in his old age would be less of a burden when shared among three children
than if it were divided between two.<<

That is very insightful. People used to think about children as, basically, old-age insurance. That's much less common now. *ponder* But I'm not sure your argument, as sensible as it is, applies to the way families actually behave.

A majority of the time, most or all of the burden for care of elderly parents falls on one person: a daughter. I think that's wrong, but it's quite common. If siblings routinely pooled resources for this purpose, the results would be much better, because as you mentioned, the burden would spread out more.