Yes, I agree with this
The moral debate is not lives vs money. It is lives vs lives. It will take months, perhaps years, if ever, before we can assess the wider implications of what we are doing. The damage to children’s education, the excess suicides, the increase in mental health problems, the taking away of resources from other health problems that we were dealing with effectively. Those who need medical help now but won’t seek it, or might not be offered it. And what about the effects on food production and global commerce, that will have unquantifiable consequences for people of all ages, perhaps especially in developing economies?
I’d add increased DV and child abuse to that list, and elderly or vulnerable people who die not because of the virus but because they don’t get their usual checks and care. I’d also add the deaths that will result from the years of austerity measures we will face to pay back the debts we are accruing.
The measures we are taking will cost lives. Some in the short term some in the longer term. And that’s before we start adding on non-fatal but serious impacts such as job losses, business closures, increased depression, divorce, interruption of education, cuts in state support in the future.
To justify all these negative effects, we need to be very sure that the death rate will otherwise be terrible. And how can we be sure, when no country in the world has a proper systematic, accurate and transparent testing and recording policy? It may be 5%. It may be 0.5%. Or even 0.05% since there now seem to be many catching it but showing no major symptoms. We need proper testing asap. Not just to help contain the virus but so that we know whether this course is justified.