Only to the extent that ICU shortages cause additional deaths. If the healthcare system can mostly handle the surge in hospitalizations, then it wouldn't make a difference.

Another factor to consider is that every one getting infected quickly, and partial herd immunity being established sooner, could expedite the repeal of COVID control measures, and the dissipitation of the climate of fear, which are both incurring significant health, quality of life, and economic costs.

The World Bank estimates that COVID and its associated policies has already pushed 97 million people into extreme poverty. UNICEF says "Schools still closed for nearly 77 million students 18 months into pandemic": https://www.unicef.org/lac/en/press-releases/schools-still-c...

In the US, fentanyl overdoses during the pandemic have surged to become the leading cause of death for the 18 - 45 demographic: https://thenationaldesk.com/news/americas-news-now/fentanyl-...

Scientists have long known that social isolation is deadly, and if there's one thing that COVID control policies increase, it's social isolation.

You're ignoring all the cases of PTSD and people leaving healthcare professions in all this. 18% of US healthcare workers have already left the field. [0] Nearly 1/4 of healthcare workers show signs of PTSD. [1] I don't know what the overlap is, but these are serious things regardless.

---

[0]: https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/workforce/about-1-in-5...

[1]: https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/burnout-alcohol-ptsd-...

This is yet another factor to consider yes. But this pales in comparison to the number of people whose mental health is being adversely affected by the lockdowns/social-isolation/climate-of-fear. Look at scope of the global mental health epidemic:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/23/pandemic-hits-...

I disagree. The fact that this is affecting healthcare workers makes it worse, because it reduces our ability to deal with the virus in the first place.

Any back of the envelope calculations showing how you reach the conclusion that this is worse than the harm the COVID control measures are doing?

How much harm do you think operating with 20% fewer healthcare personnel would cause? Put me down for that much.

Keep in mind, this isn't just 20% fewer people to deal with COVID, it's 20% fewer people to deal with, well, everything, for years to come. I'm sure someone's done the calculations on what the consequences of a decimated healthcare system are, if you want to go look for them.

I don't know, how much harm do you estimate that causes? Obviously it's harmful, but what we need to do is compare it to the enormous harm of lockdowns and other COVID control postures, some of which I've documented.

I don't see where you've documented anything any more thoroughly than I have. This is a web forum, not a policy paper. You gave your 2 links, and I gave you mine.

How much worse do you think everything you've listed would be if we had started with 20% fewer healthcare personnel? Well, guess what. That's how bad it will be from now on, because we couldn't all cooperate to take measures to ensure the healthcare system didn't get overwhelmed in the first place, and doesn't continue to get overwhelmed.

On the face of it, your example is dwarfed by mine. Healthcare workers make up only 0.5 percent of the population. That means the direct mental health effects of limitatons on civil/economic liberties via lockdowns are going to impact 200X more people than the direct mental health effects of more COVID ICU cases on healthcare workers.

That's why I asked how you could arrive at the converse conclusion that lockdowns are net beneficial for mental health.

Another factor to consider is that unusual strain on the healthcare system lowers the average level of care. For example right now, most planable surgeries are postponed. This is not without risk either.