What begins as an emergency response to the spread of disease can soon give way to wide-open questions of what we really live for, and what we really want. Historically, plagues and other lethal contagions have tended to stir religious fervor, and it is hardly a surprise that also the current pandemic, can spawn existential questioning. But such contemplations need not deteriorate into metaphysical flights of fancy. And in fact, they often arise with a clear concern for the world we live in, here and now. Covid-19 forces us to think, in concrete terms, about seemingly abstract questions that we otherwise typically more or less automatically relegate to “some other time” in a vague future. As we try to ward off disaster and chart a wholesome course of action, powerful AI is there to assist us in the computation of vast and diverse data collected on the humanitarian, social, and economic battle fronts. Yet as we rely on the crucial help of our newfound virtual friends for visualizing the lay of the land and charting a way forward, a computation-based method requires that we translate important human values—like that of a saved human life—in sometimes disturbingly quantifiable ways. And while working on a somewhat reasonable formulation of the value of one human life, we soon realize that we must also be able to say more about what it might be that gives life value in the first place. What is “a good life”? And what really do we want this world to be? In the end, building a reliable model of disease control requires that we have good-enough answers to questions like these. Indeed, if the values of a model’s central variables turn out to be dramatically off, the consequences of relying on its predictions may turn out to be quite disastrous.