Complex situations like these outbreaks are ripe with unknowns and varying degrees of ambiguity to play into. The event is so recent the data isn't great, early

Complex situations like these outbreaks are ripe with unknowns and varying degrees of ambiguity to play into. The event is so recent the data isn't great, early (and likely current data) was/is flawed, the event is still active, etc. There are so many independent and dependent variables intertwined that drawing base conclusions on certain useful actions regarding side effects is incredibly challenging from a modeling or even data collection perspective. As always, people jump into these gaping unknowns with predispositions and start drawing up conclusions they like fleshed out to strengthen personal agendas. Some are more articulate or exploitative of these situations than others, so their arguments are better/more widely received. "We should lockdown because X, for all these potentially viable arguments in a blackhole of ambiguity. Oh, and BTW, the lockdown has improved my life." Or, "we should not lockdown because Y, for all these potentially viable arguments. BTW, the lockdown has hindered my livelihood." A lot of the data is so early we're still guessing either way. The one clear (and frankly obvious) controlled variable is that social distancing effectively limits the spread of the disease. Now as to the side effects, we're just getting largely preliminary data. I think we should still explore these issues but we need to be clear what our agendas are and be careful linking this pandemic to strengthen our agendas.