Ok, so a bit of forewarning: this is going to delve into current events a little bit (not too much though).
I was having a discussion with someone about the response to the recent pandemic and I said something along the lines of: "It is important that everyone stays home so that the virus doesn't spread and we can minimize the number of deaths (and therefore the amount of suffering) that this virus brings. Not staying home (if you can) is wrong because it has the potential to spread the virus and kill people. We should prioritize human life even if it costs a bit of economic growth."
They countered by saying: "By that logic, the speed limit everywhere should be 5mph. Thousands of people die in traffic accidents every year, many from speeding. This creates a lot of suffering both for the people who die and for their family members. Now, of course ambulances and medical supply trucks could have an exemption to this rule (decreases suffering), but doing this could potentially save many lives. Is it morally wrong to have 60 mph speed limits?"
I was unsure as to how to respond to this. Yes, traffic deaths kill a whole lot of people every year. And if you think about it, many things that we see as convenient and useful either cause or are built on suffering. How does utilitarianism balance convenience and suffering? I would say that death counts pretty heavily in the suffering category, but nobody I know of thinks of driving as a morally incorrect. I have a feeling I am missing an easy rebuttal, but I just don't see it and I would greatly appreciate some help.