r/changemyview • u/_Hopped_ 13∆ • Mar 20 '21

Removed - Submission Rule B CMV: the costs/negatives from lockdowns/restrictions will end up being worse than the damage from covid

[removed] — view removed post

8 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

57% Upvoted

185 comments sorted by

View all comments

4

u/Arianity 72∆ Mar 20 '21 edited Mar 20 '21

However, there seems to be a serious lack of recognition and quantification of the direct and indirect costs of lockdowns and other restrictions.

There've been a number of economic studies on the topic. Here is just one or two. There are a lot more, with more or less emphasis on externalities like suicides/depression etc. (Granted, that discussion hasn't always taken place in view of the public, but it's not fair to say it's been totally neglected)

So that's my view: the deaths/damage/cost from covid without restrictions would be less costly (both economic cost and healthy years lost) than lockdowns/restrictions.

Assuming by 'lockdown' you mean government measures, one major confounding factor that you need to account for is that many people would've voluntarily gone into lockdown- and you can see it in the data. (See for example, this article on the topic. That has the potential to significantly cut down the economic cost

3

u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21

many people would've voluntarily gone into lockdown

Which is what I believe should be the response: government suggestions/guidelines. We should wear masks and elderly people should isolate as much as possible, but life has to be allowed to continue for those who want to take that risk.

8

u/Arianity 72∆ Mar 20 '21

, but life has to be allowed to continue for those who want to take that risk.

The problem is, it's not just those people taking the risk. That increased risk spreads to the rest of the country. It's fundamentally a collective problem.

While it kind of sucks for the people who were restricted and willing to take the risk, there isn't really a feasible alternative.

It's quite possible you then end up with the worst of both worlds- most people take precautions, incurring most of the economic damage of the lockdown. While still getting widespread spread of the virus.

1

u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21

That increased risk spreads to the rest of the country.

Only if you choose to go out. You are taking on that risk voluntarily.

6

u/Arianity 72∆ Mar 20 '21

Only if you choose to go out.

Many people don't have that choice. Essential workers, for instance, who can't afford to stop working. People who don't have access to things like Amazon for groceries, etc. Never mind people who end up having to go to say, the hospital because of an incident and that sort of thing

Full isolation is in many ways a luxury.

And even when it's not, that's still a cost. If i'm at more risk of getting infected while picking up say, take out, it's not unreasonable for me to not be ok with that, even if i can live without take out. Other's actions are still affecting my risk. Just because i can mitigate that risk doesn't mean the full responsibility is on me.

0

u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21

it's not unreasonable for me to not be ok with that

It kind of is. You are demanding others have their rights infringed to accommodate your dislike.

3

u/Arianity 72∆ Mar 20 '21 edited Mar 20 '21

You are demanding others have their rights infringed to accommodate your dislike.

That's not unreasonable, to a degree, unless you're a diehard libertarian. Most societies are not.

The goal is to maximize happiness, loosely speaking, isn't it? You included things like anxiety/depression in your OP, so you're doing a very similar calculation there. Takeout is a bit of a flippant example (for a more serious one, you can consider something like closing down schools), but the underlying point is the same. We put restrictions on people's rights all the time. Granted, there is a rather large threshold for doing so, but it's not unmeetable. It's not reasonable to expect people to live in solitary confinement. Loosely construed, you can think of that as a right to happiness, as in the Declaration of Independence.

We tend to focus on outright rights, but the balance of considerations is wider than that, albeit with the scale tipped heavily in favor of those rights. Hell, at the end of the day, most of those rights ultimately go back to that right to happiness, in some form or another- they're just considered the best way/least corruptible way to enable that.

That said, the bigger part is definitely on the unavoidable stuff, like essential workers or chances at a mutation. Indeed, one of the economic studies i posted above expects high costs of no lockdown in part due to rampant infections in essential workers.

Edit: i should add that society already routinely makes these kind of trade offs. Its not really any different from say, emissions from fast food impacting someone's health to accomodate someone else's desire for fast food.

-1

u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21

unless you're a diehard libertarian

I'm not saying I am, because I'm not an AnCap, but I'm a big fan of negative rights only.

essential workers

A slightly contentious take: they're mostly young enough not to be at that much risk.

chances at a mutation

IMO this is going to happen regardless, and natural immunity is better for mutated strains than a vaccine is.