> You can have a social safety net and pay people to stay home. But if you're insistent that these are the only two options, look at Sweden. I think that first

> You can have a social safety net and pay people to stay home. But if you're insistent that these are the only two options, look at Sweden. I think that first sentence sounds like a great strategy, and it's perfectly in line with what I suggested. Coincidentally, that's exactly what Sweden did as part of its strategy. So I'm not so sure how Sweden is an example of the opposite? > guess what, it turns out people don't want to go out and risk dying. If people are voluntarily doing that, what's the point of having the government enforce the lockdown? > So if your economy is doing to have mass unemployment, you may as well do that and avoid the death and injury. Again, lockdowns aren't 100% free. They also cause death, injury, and misery. Suicides are up, domestic violence is up, cancer screenings are down, drug overdoses are up, alcoholism is up, depression is way up. Poor kids in the US who relied on school lunches as their only decent meal of the day are suffering nutritionally, and will lose years of their life because of malnutrition now. I have a friend who was sick with covid for months, and she's got a long way to recovery. I have a friend who just got out of the ICU after having been there a couple of weeks, he's in shit shape, but alive. That sucks. But I also have friends who were close to suicide because they were unemployed, isolated, and really depressed. That also sucks. There are no easy choices in this mess, and yet lockdowns are sold as an easy choice by people for whom it is easy, and failure to lock down is portrayed as some sort of moral failing, which is horrifying to me.