3 ms·

These (additional 207 million people pushed to extreme poverty) are the type of numbers that make me wonder why we are permitting the economic impact of lockdow

These (additional 207 million people pushed to extreme poverty) are the type of numbers that make me wonder why we are permitting the economic impact of lockdowns. If the side effects of the "lockdown cure" are going to be exorbitant poverty and starvation, doesn't that make the cure worse than the disease? In addition to this article, UNICEF says[0] up to 132 million people will face starvation related to the lockdowns in 2020. Just cursory searching yields the current COVID-19 death count at 1.6m[1] (a total which is disputed due to the "died from COVID-19" vs "died with COVID-19" distinction). It seems like the starvation and poverty numbers from the lockdowns are likely to exceed any potential COVID-19 death count (even with no lockdowns). And none of the aforementioned includes lockdown-related suicides, lack of medical care for existing medical conditions, and other impacts from being isolated or stuck inside. Is this all emotional/fear-based/CYA decision making? I keep hearing "follow the science", but it doesn't seem like anybody is doing that at a basic life-saving or economic level. It feels like I'm going crazy, because none of the decisions being made make sense to me and are resulting in significant suffering and death. It would be great to learn more if there are things I am overlooking here, but I've just been baffled lately. [0] https://data.unicef.org/resources/sofi-2020/ https://data.unicef.org/resources/sofi-2020/ [1] https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

marcosdumay 6y ago
You should compare that number with how many people would die if there was no lockdown, not with how many died.
- cmdshiftf4 6y ago
  And then compare that number with a lockdown that only targeted those at a higher risk of extremely poor or death outcomes from COVID.
gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
Politicians are cynically deciding they’d rather not be blamed for deaths even if they’re categorically failing to protect the most vulnerable. So they’ve decided to obliterate small business and the working class by essentially outlawing work.
wwweston 6y ago
> are the type of numbers that make me wonder why we are permitting the economic impact of lockdowns. Permitting? What do you propose be done? The economic impacts aren't primarily from civil direction -- there may be a margin that comes from that, but the vast majority of shifted behavior comes because people don't feel safe. You could wave a magic wand and drop ALL restrictions today and the economic gains would be marginal until people do credibly believe their safe. The basic idea of a dichotomy between economics and epidemic is wrong. Economic impacts are an inevitable part of an uncontrolled epidemic. > none of the aforementioned includes lockdown-related suicides Are there numbers for lockdown related mental health impacts? In general, health and well-being don't seem to suffer like you'd expect from economic difficulty: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090928172530.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090928172530.h... https://www.history.com/news/great-depression-economy-life-expectancy https://www.history.com/news/great-depression-economy-life-e... > lack of medical care for existing medical conditions This is actually one reason some civil direction to control covid cases is necessary. Having followed family members through multiple non-covid hospitalizations recently, I can tell you that the system isn't keeping margins of unused capacity for covid, it's struggling to keep up with demand imposed by it.
AndrewBissell 6y ago
The especially frustrating thing about this is that the vast majority of the risk for serious illness from COVID is concentrated in a few high risk groups, in particular the elderly. Lockdowns and outside help targeted to those groups could probably get much wider buy-in and flatten the curve much more. Instead, while 23 year olds are forbidden from going to bars, there is still a person in his 70s bagging groceries at my local supermarket. Mailing vitamin D pills to everyone in the country probably would also do more to reduce Covid deaths than the lockdowns (though might not be feasible for logistics/supply chain reasons).

marcosdumay 6y ago

You should compare that number with how many people would die if there was no lockdown, not with how many died.

cmdshiftf4 6y ago
And then compare that number with a lockdown that only targeted those at a higher risk of extremely poor or death outcomes from COVID.

gnusty_gnurc 6y ago

Politicians are cynically deciding they’d rather not be blamed for deaths even if they’re categorically failing to protect the most vulnerable. So they’ve decided to obliterate small business and the working class by essentially outlawing work.

wwweston 6y ago

> are the type of numbers that make me wonder why we are permitting the economic impact of lockdowns. Permitting? What do you propose be done? The economic impacts aren't primarily from civil direction -- there may be a margin that comes from that, but the vast majority of shifted behavior comes because people don't feel safe. You could wave a magic wand and drop ALL restrictions today and the economic gains would be marginal until people do credibly believe their safe. The basic idea of a dichotomy between economics and epidemic is wrong. Economic impacts are an inevitable part of an uncontrolled epidemic. > none of the aforementioned includes lockdown-related suicides Are there numbers for lockdown related mental health impacts? In general, health and well-being don't seem to suffer like you'd expect from economic difficulty: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090928172530.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090928172530.h... https://www.history.com/news/great-depression-economy-life-expectancy https://www.history.com/news/great-depression-economy-life-e... > lack of medical care for existing medical conditions This is actually one reason some civil direction to control covid cases is necessary. Having followed family members through multiple non-covid hospitalizations recently, I can tell you that the system isn't keeping margins of unused capacity for covid, it's struggling to keep up with demand imposed by it.

AndrewBissell 6y ago

The especially frustrating thing about this is that the vast majority of the risk for serious illness from COVID is concentrated in a few high risk groups, in particular the elderly. Lockdowns and outside help targeted to those groups could probably get much wider buy-in and flatten the curve much more. Instead, while 23 year olds are forbidden from going to bars, there is still a person in his 70s bagging groceries at my local supermarket. Mailing vitamin D pills to everyone in the country probably would also do more to reduce Covid deaths than the lockdowns (though might not be feasible for logistics/supply chain reasons).