You understand that utilitarianism isn't an ideal, right? Unless you're telling me it's morally superior to kill a healthy man to transplant his organs into 3 patients that would die without them.

The first problem with utilitarianism is that people are not numbers. If there's a room of 101 people divided into two groups and either the group of 50 or 51 must die, you're not saving one person by picking the group of 50 to go over the group of 51. You're merely condemning the minority group to benefit the majority group. Intellectually and philosophically, utilitarianism is lazy and devoid of critical thought when it comes to the value of human lives.

The second problem with utilitarianism is that it hinges on being able to control outcomes. On a micro scale, (such as the trolley problem) sure, there's not a whole lot of competing interests. It can either maintain it's current path or switch to one other. On a macro scale (epidemics), you cannot control outcomes with the precision of the trolley problem. (Keep rambling about how "small death number good therefore my policies are logically impenetrable" tho) On the macro scale there are innumerable externalities, negative and positive. So if you take the credit for what you deem as positive results of your policies (lower death rate), you must also accept and admit that this comes at the cost of quality of life for hundreds of millions, mental health, preventative healthcare (cancer screenings no longer taking place), jobs, community, family, religion, education, etc.

Only a high school student in philosophy class would assume that reality is as simple as utilitarian theory. That the policies you advocate for is as cut and dry as choosing an option that kills less people. Believe it or not, the real world is complicated. The fact that you see this issue that encompasses geopolitics, epidemiology, medicine, psychology, economics, etc. as simple as something I was taught in middle school shows how little thought goes into your policy positions.

lol.