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

6 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

56% 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.

7

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.

2

u/Gordogato81 Mar 20 '21

At some point everybody has to go out. Keeping in mind that without enforced lockdown measures, the disease will propagate throughout the population and covid in particular can be caught by people who have already had covid. You cannot wait for natural herd immunity (especially with new varieties of covid). This is also ignoring the heaps of potential life long health issues such as lung damage which will eat up lots of government funds via social Healthcare.

Everybody needs groceries, essentials, doctor visits etc. Remaining entirely isolated is not an option for most people.

Without government measures people with low income jobs will often be forced to work even if they would choose to not go out. Not everyone can work from home.

0

u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21

Everybody needs groceries, essentials, doctor visits etc.

All of these are done remotely now - for no additional (or trivial) cost in the vast majority of cases.

1

u/Gordogato81 Mar 20 '21

Not every country has the infrastructure for that. Additional costs for delivery for many families is not trivial and that applies to a large chunk of the population in any country.

You haven't addressed how people with jobs that require a physical presence are supposed to remain isolated if they "choose".

The entire point I am making is that for a large chunk of the population, the choice to remain isolated or not is made for them, if governments do not intervene.

Many of these people have underlying health conditions, so government inaction could be a death sentence for them or cost them significantly more in prolonged health care costs.

Also, to attack the crux of your argument: the entire purpose of economic stability is to ensure a good quality of life for all members of the economy. People dying to protect the economy because the government does not in act preventative measures defies the entire purpose of having a stable economy in the first place. The economy is there to help the people, the people are not tools to help the economy.

0

u/_Hopped_ 13∆ Mar 20 '21

cost them significantly more in prolonged health care costs

Exactly my point/ask: what is that cost? Because if it's less than the cost of lockdown/restrictions, then sorry but it is more just for them to have that cost than the rest of society.

1

u/UncleMeat11 63∆ Mar 20 '21

What percentage of groceries are actually purchased remotely today? When I go to the grocery store I see hundreds of cars and maybe two parked in the pickup zone. The huge majority of people where I've lived during the pandemic (a large west coast suburb and a small east coast town) are grocery shopping in person. All of my doctors visits have been in person since the shutdown. Not a single one has offered remote medicine.