The first rule of medicine is to do no harm. To harm millions of people and kill thousands to save people from a illness (even if you say that these measures help) is a very big mistake.
The experience in Melbourne (Victoria Australia) has been interesting. They locked down for a number of months and have got effective control of the virus, with 9 days no infection so far since lifting movement restrictions. There has been a lot of concern about peoples mental health and money is being spent both on highlighting the problem as well as making sure people are aware of services available. My understanding is that the services are under pressure, but coping.
Lockdown is going to cause secondary social, health and economic problems, but if you can do it well and get control of the virus then you gain flexibility to deal with the secondary problems. If you don't control the virus, you will end up with those other problems as well as the out of control virus.
This is a no win situation. If you aren't lucky enough to live in an isolated country and avoid the problem from the start, something that only worked for some of the really isolated island nations, then you have to move hard and fast to control the virus and hope to deal with the flow on problems once you have the immediate threat under control.
Problem is actually you don’t because unless the virus is completely eliminated it can only be controlled using infinite lockdowns, or it’ll simply flare up again and every sacrifice will be wasted.
That is the problem. Indeed unless you plan on doing the job properly I would question the value of even trying. It requires a strong sense of purpose and a full communication with the public on what is being attempted. The good thing is that the infection pattern of this thing is pretty well understood at this stage so this should be possible.
There is a tremendous element of morbidity to the mental health aspect as well, not just mortality.
I see a lot of arguments that are along the lines of the only negative outcome of COVID is death, and anything short of that doesn't deserve to be considered. I read your argument as being structured in a similar way.
There are really bad things happening both with the mental health impact of this whole thing, as well as the impact of the virus itself. They're both tragic, and serious, and we need to be thinking about both.
I'm not saying that you're not on-board with this argument, and I'm not saying you are. I just wanted to add this to the discussion for discussion's sake.
This is so vague.
Do you expect to close all bars, restaurant, venues until further notice and let thousands of business die while also putting millions into poverty while increasing depression and suicide rates?
Lockdown is going to cause secondary social, health and economic problems, but if you can do it well and get control of the virus then you gain flexibility to deal with the secondary problems. If you don't control the virus, you will end up with those other problems as well as the out of control virus.
This is a no win situation. If you aren't lucky enough to live in an isolated country and avoid the problem from the start, something that only worked for some of the really isolated island nations, then you have to move hard and fast to control the virus and hope to deal with the flow on problems once you have the immediate threat under control.