Check out our updated Community
Colette British
Professional Teacher
Saving lives through, is also destroying communities
I live in a community where the lockdown is causing starvation.

I understand the importance of limiting the spread of disease;
I am also concerned by the millions in my country
who are hungry due to the spike in unemployment.

The unemployment will take many years to resolve itself
due to the drop in the total economy .

Many businesses are closing.
I am not convinced of the benefit of an 8 week lockdown.



May 19, 2020 6:32 PM
Comments · 10
Richer countries will be able to maintain the lockdown longer than poorer ones or those with a significant portion of the population in jobs that simply cannot be performed remotely. Even rich countries can't maintain lockdown as it is implemented in its stricter forms forever, because you can't just keep on printing money. Well, you can, but it won't end in a place you like.

Poorer countries will have to walk the tightrope between starvation, as you rightly point out, and massive outbreaks. It's easy for those who live in places with a good social safety net to scoff at people pointing out the costs of lockdown, but these are real costs everyone will have to bear down the line, and they are immediate for most of the world. The issue is more complex than "for protecting human life" and "for the economy", even though some people like to reduce the debate to that. The economy, of which we are part, is life-sustaining. I think there are ways to be cautious, practice good hygiene, and keep one's distance while letting business go on where it can.

Michael Levitt has an interesting perspective on this dilemma. While he understands the need for some social distancing, he also warns against panic, fear-mongering, the irresponsible and distorted presentation of statistics, and warns of the looming health crisis that will result from shutting down everything too long.
May 19, 2020
Is an eight week lockdown necessary ? To do the job properly, I believe it is, given the time scale of the process of infection - substantially longer than for similar diseases.

Is it better to be alive, but poor and hungry, or dead ? Or is it a matter of numbers : you will accept that some people die rather than everyone is poorer, as long as it's not you, or your family and friends, who pay that price ?

@ thiago thass It doesn't bear thinking about the number of deaths that could have occurred in China, Italy, Spain, France, the UK and the US without the lockdowns imposed in these countries. The most basic principle of the right to life has taken precedence over the cost, both immediate and ultimate, of the measures taken to protect it.
It is this principle that underlies the aid given by many relatively wealthy western countries to poorer ones, and the rescue missions carried out by the UK and other countries to save migrants from drowning at sea in their attempts to reach those countries. It may not be the most cost-effective principle in the long run, but it is deeply embedded in our culture and values.
May 19, 2020
I prefer no job but alive....thanks
May 19, 2020
"The unemployment will take many years to resolve itself
due to the drop in the total economy," but it only takes 10 to 30 minutes of exposure to an infected person to possibly end someone's life. .
May 19, 2020
In truly the lockdown will kill more people than save. I can see in the news many people that have Corona virus and survive. but in the opposite, I don't know any person that survive without food.
May 20, 2020
Show More
Colette British
Language Skills
Afrikaans, English
Learning Language
Afrikaans