Let's quantify things here, for a first world country with a social net.
On the one hand, we have people getting evicted from their homes and having to visit soup kitchens.
On the other hand, we have dead people (more likely, dead poor people).
Evil seems pretty fair.
Which translates directly into many years of reduced life expectancy, no?
I'm saying that the two miseries feel like apples vs oranges, given the context.
You'd have to go pretty far to convince me that (even mass) economic depression is more harmful than widespread, near-term fatalities.
That's hard to weigh against a concrete number of very concrete deaths and serious recuperation periods.
Near-term fatalities affect certain groups more than others. Those with access to medical services (or can pay for more of it) will be less affected.
Which side being worse is a determination you have to make for yourself.
Something to remember the next time people harp on about GDP being the most important metric for a country's advancement.
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-02-recession-greater-dec...
Evil is reserved as a description for gross failures of moral duty. Choosing pragmatically between several terrible options with highly unpredictable outcomes does not meet that standard.