In light of second lockdowns, and a debate I had in the chatbox, I wanted to see public opinion on MCM in regards to lockdowns as a method of preventing/delaying infection.
I will present reasons for lockdowns and reasons against lockdowns but you are entitled to comment your opinion below. All opinions should be backed up with evidence if you want to make a concise, clear and valued point. I am against lockdowns but for localised approaches - so I may be biased in this post.
AGAINST LOCKDOWNS
The social impacts of COVID-19 lockdowns is apparent and cannot be argued against. You have felt it yourself. Not being able to see friends and family. Not being able to enjoy yourself at hospitality or leisure venues. This has lead to a rise in mental health cases and suicides/suicidal thoughts (refs: https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4095, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54616688). Should we sacrifice young people (who are disproportionately affected by the lockdowns) for the sake of delaying the inevitable deaths that will be caused by the pandemic?
The economic impacts of COVID-19 lockdowns is extreme. Though public health should be prioritized over protecting the general economy, without an economy we do not have a societal structure. The whole system collapses. GDP in the UK fell by the largest amount ever recorded in history (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...se-charts-unprecedented-history-a9562326.html). With a recession comes job cuts and businesses closing, this leads to unemployment and then onto mass unemployment. When this happens, you have a problem because this leads into a spiral effect. More mass unemployment means less money circulates less and people buy less, with people buying less, more job cuts are made, with job cuts made more people lose their job, with more people losing their job it returns to the first point. This all-in-all leads to homelessness, food insecurity and water insecurity, all to prevent a few deaths from a virus that generally only kills those over 65 and with underlying health conditions. This can lead to deaths - isn't the case for lockdowns to prevent deaths?
FOR LOCKDOWNS
Though social impacts are apparent, it can actually help social relations with your household. I know for certain my relationship with my mother improved over the course of the first UK lockdown. As a family, we became closer. (Ref: https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-the-unexpected-benefits-of-a-world-in-lockdown-11985708)
Additionally, lockdowns can prevent deaths - though the majority of deaths will simply happen a later date, some deaths can be prevented due to the lower risk of infection - and less deaths is never a bad thing. It helps spread the peak of deaths over a longer period of time.
---
I'd like to hear your opinion on lockdowns and why you are for/against them - scientifically or personally. Please also vote on the poll.
This post does not at all have every single reason for and against, but I highlighted the main reasons that in my opinion are important to consider. I personally think governments should centralise their approach to protect the vulnerable. Herd immunity (at the present time) is possible and it can kick in at even 30% of the population having antibodies due to the lower chance of infection. Every person that has antibodies reduces the chance of another person being infected. Once herd immunity has been reached in the general population (of whom have an exponentially lower risk of dying from the virus, and 99.9% of the time have a mild case) it will be safe to release the vulnerable into general society. A virus dies out by itself when herd immunity comes into play.
I will present reasons for lockdowns and reasons against lockdowns but you are entitled to comment your opinion below. All opinions should be backed up with evidence if you want to make a concise, clear and valued point. I am against lockdowns but for localised approaches - so I may be biased in this post.
AGAINST LOCKDOWNS
The social impacts of COVID-19 lockdowns is apparent and cannot be argued against. You have felt it yourself. Not being able to see friends and family. Not being able to enjoy yourself at hospitality or leisure venues. This has lead to a rise in mental health cases and suicides/suicidal thoughts (refs: https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4095, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54616688). Should we sacrifice young people (who are disproportionately affected by the lockdowns) for the sake of delaying the inevitable deaths that will be caused by the pandemic?
The economic impacts of COVID-19 lockdowns is extreme. Though public health should be prioritized over protecting the general economy, without an economy we do not have a societal structure. The whole system collapses. GDP in the UK fell by the largest amount ever recorded in history (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...se-charts-unprecedented-history-a9562326.html). With a recession comes job cuts and businesses closing, this leads to unemployment and then onto mass unemployment. When this happens, you have a problem because this leads into a spiral effect. More mass unemployment means less money circulates less and people buy less, with people buying less, more job cuts are made, with job cuts made more people lose their job, with more people losing their job it returns to the first point. This all-in-all leads to homelessness, food insecurity and water insecurity, all to prevent a few deaths from a virus that generally only kills those over 65 and with underlying health conditions. This can lead to deaths - isn't the case for lockdowns to prevent deaths?
FOR LOCKDOWNS
Though social impacts are apparent, it can actually help social relations with your household. I know for certain my relationship with my mother improved over the course of the first UK lockdown. As a family, we became closer. (Ref: https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-the-unexpected-benefits-of-a-world-in-lockdown-11985708)
Additionally, lockdowns can prevent deaths - though the majority of deaths will simply happen a later date, some deaths can be prevented due to the lower risk of infection - and less deaths is never a bad thing. It helps spread the peak of deaths over a longer period of time.
---
I'd like to hear your opinion on lockdowns and why you are for/against them - scientifically or personally. Please also vote on the poll.
This post does not at all have every single reason for and against, but I highlighted the main reasons that in my opinion are important to consider. I personally think governments should centralise their approach to protect the vulnerable. Herd immunity (at the present time) is possible and it can kick in at even 30% of the population having antibodies due to the lower chance of infection. Every person that has antibodies reduces the chance of another person being infected. Once herd immunity has been reached in the general population (of whom have an exponentially lower risk of dying from the virus, and 99.9% of the time have a mild case) it will be safe to release the vulnerable into general society. A virus dies out by itself when herd immunity comes into play.
Last edited:
