You can't expect someone to take a rushed vaccine because other people are panicking. Lockdowns are what crash the economy, not the virus.

Evidence?

(My own suspicion is that the lockdowns are better for the economy in the long run, but I’m definitely not an expert.)

Just compare the GDP hit taken by Japan and Korea, which had essentially no lockdowns, with that taken by the European countries that locked down. Places with extensive lockdowns had GDP fall by 5-10 percentage points more. Or compare US states with more lockdowns vs those with less or no lockdown: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/red-states-are-outpe....

Because a temporarily modestly increased death rate wouldn't cause the damage we are currently doing to ourselves.

Better? Explain

>Better? Explain

Not GP, but it seems to me that given the large consumer spending portion of GDP (~70% in the US) in developed countries, anything that will limit folks going out and spending money, like:

1. Retail sales;

2. Air/rail/bus travel;

3. Going to bars/restaurants;

4. Hospitality (hotels/cruises);

5. Theater/concerts;

6. Public transportation.

Is likely to have significant negative effect on the economy as a whole until the majority of the population is convinced that they won't become sick and/or put their vulnerable loved ones at risk.

As such, it seems to me that we won't be able to resuscitate the economy fully until we have some semblance of herd immunity.

Whether that herd immunity comes from a vaccine or millions of deaths and tens of millions of long-term effects, or from a broadly deployed vaccine will also have significant economic impact.

tl;dr: if many/most won't go to the mall, the pub or Mallorca, the economy will continue to flounder. We won't get past that until people feel safe around others.

Apparently some folks disagree with my assessment/reasoning.

It would be nice to know what, exactly, I seem to be missing. Both for my own edification as well as enhancing the discussion around this.

If you’re doing it right, lockdowns are coordinated and brief.

That just means they are less harmful, but still harmful.

Are you pretending like not locking down this winter for example would have no negative effects on the economy?

I'm not an anti-vaxxer, but I'm not eager to be a guinea pig for anything that's been rushed through every approval stage. Especially since those approval stages were created in response to very real issues with vaccines that hadn't been discovered in early development and testing

Not an anti-vaxxer either but I don’t want to be the first to try something that is basically rushed to fix COVID, which has a 99% survival rate.

Please put it through proper animal and human trials before subjecting the populous to it.

What do you think these results are from?

No the lockdowns and still panicking US Governors crashed the economy.

I’d rather wait for a full FDA test and clearance on the vaccine than rush to be a guinea pig.

This isn’t a movie, people aren’t dropping dead from COVID unless they have comorbidity that puts them at risk.

Does having a comorbidity mean they deserve it?

If the comorbidity is obesity, which in most cases results from lifestyle choices, it's hardly fair for them to ask others to make sacrifices to protect them from the consequences of their own lifestyle choices.

Either explain how your position differs from "fat people deserve to die" or start using clearer language.

It's not "fat people deserve to die", it's "people who made good life choices don't deserve to have their livelihoods destroyed to reduce the risk of fat people dying".