If you lock down or don't lock down, there will be an economic impact, plus a hit on other areas, cancer treatment for example. An uncle of mine is effectively waiting to die from cancer after not being able to get help when symptoms first appeared (just before lockdown).Puja wrote:I am disapproving of how this is being presented in the press (I know, press not being trustworthy in reporting on scienceMellsblue wrote:Bad news:
Study shows that direct and indirect consequences of lockdown may cause 200,000 extra deaths in the long term
Good news:
erm...that is worst case scenario.) as that figure is including the deaths due to all of the jobs and economic growth lost in lockdown, without taking into account that a "no lockdown" scenario would cause massive economic disruption through 1-4% of the population dying and almost certainly result in a worse hit than a lockdown did.
Puja
But the consequences of not locking down would have been far worse and we would still have had an economic impact. That's the key message, but the media doesn't really go for that level of nuance.