I have yet to see a cogent validation of the total lives saved by lockdown when considering all other health impacts such as suicide rates from isolation, heart disease/stroke/diabetes from extra sedentary lifestyle etc.
not to mention the suicide by fentanyl in a subsequent economic recession/depression.
I'm generally worried about this sort of thing as well, and wish people were looking into this.
However, we have pretty good estimates on how many people will die if we don't shelter and isolate, and I think that trumps what would inevitably be some very vague guesses as to how many people might die as side effects of sheltering and isolation.
And regardless, many of those potential deaths could be preventable with the right focus on mental health and financial support during and after the lockdown. (Not saying we do have the right focus; I expect we definitely don't. But that's not a reason to give up on isolation.)
> we have pretty good estimates on how many people will die if we don't shelter and isolate
This is a fantastic point/rebuttal and has helped shift my perspective somewhat. We can do things about tomorrow's suicides, heart attacks and diabetes later, though not too too much later.
Right, I think it's a "one thing at a time" sort of situation. Like: we have a clear problem with a potential solution that will mitigate the problem immediately. That solution may create other problems, but we do have some time (though, as you suggest, not a lot) to try to fix that up after dealing with the first problem.
It all depends on how the return to normalcy happens and how much support is present. Things like the fentanyl epidemic were already present and ignored; the opportunity is here to take it into account during the recovery. Hopefully some of the states will do that and make money available.
The pandemic is eroding the idea that sickness and poverty are moral failings. It that sticks the benefits will be huge.
Oh, and there has been the first month without a school shooting since 2002. Another epidemic controlled by staying at home.
With these values, if a lockdown of two years or less will stop the COVID-19 pandemic, it is a good idea. With the current research into treatments and vaccines and the development of testing and tracing strategies, I believe that there will be a medical or public health way to stop the pandemic in less than two years. Notably, the net benefit of a decision to initiate or sustain lockdown goes up over time, because the time remaining until medical countermeasures are available keeps going down.
That analysis strikes me as being very shallow. With that style of analysis, you could come up with whatever result you wanted.
Covid mainly kills older people, so you can’t use an “average” value of a life when calculating costs. I would also expect some discussion on the effects upon the economy of the death of a lot of retirees.
not to mention the suicide by fentanyl in a subsequent economic recession/depression.
Any aware of such an analysis?