Okay, Kevin, let's not get crazy here. I think you have a valid response to what I said, but at the same time I still think what I said is pretty reasonable. The fraction of people who have no other means of getting weather warnings than outdoor warning sirens is decreasing day by day, and frankly, the value of building and/or maintaining aged systems like outdoor warning sirens will eventually be surpassed by their cost as the value of using other technologies rises and exceeds the cost of building and maintaining THOSE systems. Obviously no one sane WANTS people to have to fend for themselves as far as being alerted to oncoming severe weather, but at the same time it's impossible for any municipal system to guarantee protection of every single one of its citizens. I'll reiterate my point that, at some point, every person is ultimately responsible for their own safety, regardless of the situation. Even people who DO get warnings still have to take appropriate action against severe weather, and in some situations (like tornadoes) 100% safety cannot be guaranteed. And there are plenty of cases in which people receive warnings but do not heed them appropriately, and thus suffer as a result of not being responsible for their own safety. My point is it's just not possible for any overarching system to guarantee the safety of every last person without becoming cost-unworthy.
I hate to say it this way, but if you could only choose one of the following, which would you take? a) Spend $1,000,000 on a warning system that protects 95% of your citizens; or b) spend $10,000,000 ($9,000,000 more, which you may not have) to protect an additional 4.5%? The math: $1 million for 95% is ~$10,500 per 1% of your population, or $10 million for 99.5% (~$100,500 per 1%) of your population)?
Insurance companies do this all the time. I'm pretty sure you can google the current insurance value of a human life somewhere.
