[flamble]

> Lockdown has a death toll. This is just fact.

I steeled myself to read this post in the most charitable possible light. Yes, lockdown most likely has some death toll. But the specific points you're making are very dubious and also very recognisable as the effect of consuming specific kinds of media.

Firstly, the point about "not getting as much exercise" is frustrating. Back when we didn't have data on this, it was annoying to me to hear people's absolute conviction that (a) people would exercise less and (b) the effect would be so large that it would lead to a decrease in obesity significant enough to offset the number of life-years lost to COVID, especially since the lockdown personally prompted me to start exercising MORE due to my new surplus of idle time. We now have some suggestion that for previously sedentary people, it led to more exercise (my experience) and for previously active people, it led to a decrease. I'd love to see any suggestion that the net effect of this was so colossal as to produce the adverse health outcomes of whose existence you seem so confident. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7312512/

> In Australia, an additional 4000-7000 suicides were projected

At least in Victoria, it seems like these predictions were unfounded. Of course, that is not going to stop people from repeating this talking point. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-27/no-spike-in-suicide-r...

[rswail]

Yes, there were deaths as a result of the lockdown. There was definitely increases in mental health problems and associated effects like domestic violence and addictive behaviors. There are scars that will take time to heal. There are likely to be ongoing effects that will need to be addressed.

However, the effect of these needs to be balanced against the effect of not controlling the spread of COVID. There were also other benefits, for example, much lower influenza and other winter diseases due to lack of contact and masks and social distancing.

By controlling and reducing the number of cases, we had lower rates and now almost eliminated hospitalizations. There were interruptions in "elective" surgeries, but required surgery and hospitalization for other disease suffered much less than it could have.

[m0zg]

I can confirm his exercise point. The physically active people I know, including myself and my wife, exercised mostly in gyms before COVID. First, gyms were shut down for months, which pretty much kills the habit of going to the gym (the main reason why people stick with it). Now their policies are so onerous, they're borderline psychotic, so we canceled our gym memberships months ago. On a less anecdotal note, two of our three major local gyms are now in bankruptcy. The one that's not in bankruptcy is largely funded by Microsoft, their employees used to go there, and now even though they don't go, Microsoft still keeps paying.

Both my and my wife's weight went up. I was able to beat it, she wasn't, so she's about 8kg heavier now than she was in February. The only exercise I get now is half an hour of stationary bike a day. I used to seriously lift weights 4-5 days a week, in addition to it.

It's not even a question for anyone not completely brainwashed that lockdowns are very psychologically hard on people.

[luckylion]

> Yes, lockdown most likely has some death toll. But the specific points you're making are very dubious and also very recognisable as the effect of consuming specific kinds of media.

I find that an unnecessary slight. Since that topic is very taboo, you won't be able to read about it in mainstream media sources, but only in opposition sources and professional journals. Attacking it on those grounds is weak.

It would be extremely surprising if a multi-month lockdown didn't have a death toll, "most likely" makes it sound like that's probable but remains to be seen. I don't think that's a reasonable position given all we know about the cost of policies, mental health and economic depression.

The argument shouldn't be "lockdown is painless" (because it obviously isn't), it has to be "no lockdown is more painful". We won't be able to tell whether it's true for quite some time, but there's a good argument for erring on the side of caution.

[disdain_stain]

If that suicide prediction was made it must have been early on in the pandemic when no one really what was going to happen. If there was an increase of 4000-7000 that'd mean 2-3 times the ~3,000 suicides that occurred in Australia last year.

[0xy]

Stop repeating this false claim. I never said it'd increase in a single year (strawman).

The Australian Medical Association projects 750-1,000 additional suicides for 5 years. [1] That's an increase of 3,750 - 5,000 additional suicides.

Some have projected a 50% increased suicide rate, if that happened for 5 years it'd be 7,500 additional suicides.

[1] https://ama.com.au/media/joint-statement-covid-19-impact-lik...

[0xy]

>At least in Victoria, it seems like these predictions were unfounded.

I specifically said Australia, and your claim is incorrect according to the Australian Medical Association which forecasts 750-1,000 additional suicides for 5 years. [1] I can't find my original source for that figure but the AMA source still proves my point.

>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7312512

Belgium did not have a Melbourne-tier lockdown at any stage. Why would it be comparable?

>But the specific points you're making are very dubious and also very recognisable as the effect of consuming specific kinds of media.

Ah yes, "specific kinds of media" like the Australian Medical Association. Those darned far right Murdoch-leaning doctors.

Your own source proves my point in fact. [2]

>"We still think we're going to see, over the course of a 12-month period … and then subsequent years, in the order of 30 per cent increase [in] suicide rates," he said.

30% of 3,048 is 914. 5 years of that is 4,572 additional suicides. I got the 5 years data point from the Australian Medical Association. [1]

[1] https://ama.com.au/media/joint-statement-covid-19-impact-lik...

[2] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-27/no-spike-in-suicide-r...

[nona]

> Belgium did not have a Melbourne-tier lockdown at any stage. Why would it be comparable?

What are you talking about? Yes we did. Curfew, essential services only, no non-essential travel, etc etc.

[0xy]

No you didn't. Belgium allows unrestricted domestic travel, Melbourne allowed 5km maximum. Additionally, Belgium allows funerals with up to 15 people which is still not the case in Melbourne. You even allow children's sporting events to continue, which was never the case in Melbourne. Further, your "close contact" rules are far more lenient than Melbourne's during peak Stage 4 lockdown.

Above all of that, Melbourne has had one of the longest lockdowns globally (surpassing Wuhan in length).