Confidently stated, but the impact of lockdowns is likely more complex in reality. It may require years of research to tease out all the components; lockdown vs general pandemic stress, differences in implementation, etc. For example:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0...

> Rate ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs based on the observed versus expected numbers of suicides showed no evidence of a significant increase in risk of suicide since the pandemic began in any country or area. There was statistical evidence of a decrease in suicide compared with the expected number in 12 countries or areas.

Less human contact, less stress, less suicide.

Less school, less stress, less suicide.

> more suicide

Except the actual statistics linked upthread say otherwise thus far.

"And experts worry those studies will show a spike in suicide..."

The results weren't in, yet, when that article was written. The Lancet article is from April 2021; yours is from September 2020.

Experts are sometimes surprised by results; it's also possible the whole-population numbers have some subsets that go up and other subsets that go down.

Great point. Thanks for the correction.

That is a narrative that misses the point of the thread and is generally not compatible with hard data. For example, the amount of suicides in US during 2020 went down.

And the number of deaths due to seasonal flues is practically 0. I actually do not think any of these statistics matter, because data driven decisions are not timely by definition. What mattered is that the entire western world failed to react in time.

CDC only tracks actual suicides, not attempts. Attempts and suicidal thoughts are up: https://www.aappublications.org/news/2020/12/16/pediatricssu...

Also, on the CDC stats, deaths by "unintentional injuries" is up by way more than suicides are down.

Has anyone not had suicidal thoughts since the lockdown?

Parent was talking about missed cancers and drug abuse, not suicides. Alcohol sales were up ~20% [1]—that too is hard data.

[1]: https://wineindustryadvisor.com/2020/11/16/nielsen-covid-bev...

Off-premises alcohol sales were up; the article indicates it's a shift from on-premises to off-premises, which... shouldn't be surprising, given a lot of those premises are shut.

But people will also miss cancer screenings, get depressed and so on when they stay at home because of an unmitigated pandemic running wild. It wouldn't be 2019 again without government intervention.

(PS: also, why would they miss a cancer screening when it's literally the only pastime that isn't shut down?)

> PS: also, why would they miss a cancer screening when it's literally the only pastime that isn't shut down.

Fear to go anywhere near a medical environment. Long delays and cancelled procedures and appointments because medical professionals had other priorities.

Wouldn’t both of those situations be vastly worse if there were fewer or less strict lockdowns?

Sorry I missed the context for your PS. Yes they'd be worse without lockdowns. OP's argument is actually an argument for the side.

> (PS: also, why would they miss a cancer screening when it's literally the only pastime that isn't shut down?)

I was literally looking forward to an expensive and unpleasant dentist appointment (dental implant). At least, some change in the routine.

That argument doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

It assumes that the numbers caused by the lock-downs are bigger than the numbers caused by Covid.

It assumes that there is not positives to the lock-downs (maybe some people is less depressed at home than at their work, not deaths by flu, etc..) and, most important, it assumes that not lock-downs would not increase deaths by other causes (intensive care overworked).

The number of deaths due to missed TB vaccinations alone will be a very substantial percentage of number of COVID deaths.

Maybe, maybe not. TB should be readily stopped by masking and distancing measures; we might get something of a respite from it. I'm not aware of any numbers in either direction yet.

The story with lockdown is a lot muddier. There's a good argument to be made on both sides, and weighing which decision is best with partial data is difficult.

I completely understand the initial lockdowns when we had no data. I would have done that too, although I would have acted sooner because I saw this threat clearly in January - why our governments were less competent across the board than some rando programmer is something I haven't forgiven.

What I don't understand is now that we have data, we're still doing lockdowns with no attempt to publicly weigh the pluses and minuses and justify three decision logically. I mean maybe it's the right thing to do, but I want to see them put some real thought into the decision, and not do it because it's what they're before, or what's politically viable.

There should be a clear logical argument being made, weighing the harms on both sides and choosing the lesser evil.