> Yes, the lockdowns and measures hurt both privacy and economics, but not dealing with it hurts people more, both privileged and non-privileged, there are no w

> Yes, the lockdowns and measures hurt both privacy and economics, but not dealing with it hurts people more, both privileged and non-privileged, there are no winners. For western countries, we agree, economists are pretty much in agreement that the lockdown measures have been good (although the long term outlook isn't looking good). For poorer countries, like India, that's simply not true. When you've got a country of young people that are literally dying of hunger if they can't go to work, a 1% fatality rate starts to sound pretty good ;-) And this is even true for the poor in the US as well. People are freaking out because they lack a social safety net and even the less fortunate in the middle class have burned through their savings. Good luck explaining to them that it's for their own good, because it isn't. It's for your own good, not theirs. It's privilege because you and I can afford to stay at home. People also judge such measures via what they can and can't afford. It's not bad to be privileged, but we need to recognize the position we are in. And if you want to force people to stay at home, fine, but be prepared to pay the bill for it ;-)