Earlier quoted context omitted.
If nobody paid the ransom, ransomware attacks would be reduced to nearly zero. Paying the ransom means that other people will get ransomware attacks. So, effectively speaking, wishing someone paid the ransom means that you're also wishing that other will get hit with attacks because that's a direct consequence of paying.
I follow your logic, I just think your conclusion is vastly oversimplified. Not paying the ransom also means that other people will get ransomware attacks. There is not direct causality here. There is some game theory, sure (a prisoner's dilemma, really). If nobody ever paid ransoms, there would be very little incentive for ransomware (though still not zero, some people just want to create chaos). But I don't think i…
To be clear, I'm not saying that anyone is obligated to "take one for the team", or that anyone is bad for not being willing to. I'm just saying that if everyone was willing to, far less harm would be done in the longer term.
To me, a ransomware attack is little different than if someone just physically blew up the computers (or, with medical records, the hospital). It's a huge, costly disaster, but the damage is done. If we as a society thought of it like that and perhaps provided support (financial and otherwise) for people who get harmed like we do with any other large disaster, we could be in a better place for everyone except the criminals. Maybe we'd even put systems into place for the greater redundancy of medical records, to mitigate against actual health consequences of such attacks.
We'd also have greater interest in providing support for implementation, education & investigation in terms of hardening against such attacks.