The argument of the anti-lockdown crowd (at least as I understand it) is that the second- and third-order effects are just rich people going bankrupt, but middle- and lower-class people being forced into dire economic straights up to and including starvation, or a drastically reduced ability to afford esssential life-saving healthcare for other non-COVID conditions.
Isn't that more of a symptom of a broken healthcare system?
I see people saying “let’s wait for a vaccine” but what if a vaccine doesn’t appear for years?
How many deaths of despair are worth it?
How many domestic violence cases counterbalance one 70-year-old person dying (the average age of a covid death)?
How many people going bankrupt is worth saving the life of a single person? What if I told you that going bankrupt is associated with increased likelihood of death?
And so on... single-variate analysis of such a complex issue is doomed to fail, but that’s basically all I see.
I find that unacceptable so let's talk.
Long story short I think that the economy will pick up again once this all blows over and that whatever negative consequences there are from a lockdown are still better than hundreds of thousands of people dying.
One person dying is objectively worse than one person going bankrupt, this is ethics 101.
I realise now that I'm doing exactly what you were criticizing (lamenting deaths) but I'd really like to hear your counter argument.