Please help me settle an argument with my husband. Both of these scenarios to be considered on the basis of hindsight of what we now understand about covid...
SCENARIO A:
Essentially the reality of what occurred - initial slow response to implement measures, then eventual full lockdown of majority population resulting in significantly impacted economy, delays in diagnosis and treatment of every other illnesses, impact of the measures on mental health etc.
ALTERNATIVELY,
SCENARIO B:
All the current safety measures now in place from as early as possible (social distance, face coverings, limits on numbers etc), perhaps even a circuit breaker style lockdown to help slow spread and not overwhelm services, but with no blanket extended closure of the economy, recommended isolation only for those at risk categories (with as much additional support provided to those in that bracket) whilst everyone else encouraged to go about their lives as safely and ordinarily as they can.
In which scenario would society have been better off in the long run?
YABU - SCENARIO A
YANBU - SCENARIO B
Would total extended lockdown have been inevitable in scenario B anyway (not just circuit breaker) ((again, with hindsight obviously!))
P.S as in our household, this will obviously not be unanimous but respectful sensible debate please!