I agree with you that the reduction to financials is problematic. But for me, the reason is that the reduction misses out harms such as lost education, and tim

I agree with you that the reduction to financials is problematic. But for me, the reason is that the reduction misses out harms such as lost education, and time spent with near to end-of-life relatives. Don't forget also that most of the financial costs are not paid they are debts that most countries will continue to service for many years. We all will, through our taxes. It also misses the cost per life saved. Here, I agree, we could do with more colour. For some, the saved life will have given them a truly new lease. But I suspect many — to be blunt — did not survive much longer. Are 40 more QALYs worth €4k? For sure. But I'm not so sure an elderly relative would knowingly trade one more year if it meant forgoing visits with grandchildren, and so on. For this kind of discussion, we simply don't have the data. But I hope you will agree that the judgement "right or wrong" needs to really engage deeply in the topic — it must go far beyond the raw 'accounting costs', and I hope you would concede that it's not a slam dunk in favour of lockdown.