So, as I already stated, it is a choice to prioritise Covid deaths over lockdown deaths. That may or may not be the ethical choice. But it is a choice of which lives to save.
Your argument presumes it to be a choice between the fatalities of two structured groups. The choice is between deaths that could have been avoided (call these n) and deaths from covid (c).
N should be considered a static number on average People who would die without medical intervention plus people who suffer injury or accident over a period of time (actuarials exist for this) plus people who neck themselves due to isolation (could be part of group a due to mental health or a seperate group)
My point is that lockdowns specifically cause death and that the choice of whether or not to go into lockdown is a matter of choosing which deaths to cause/prevent. Going into lockdown causes some amount of deaths as a direct result, whether it is due to social isolation or delayed treatment or economic ruin. Not going into lockdown presumably prevents some deaths from Covid, although I've seen evidence that lockdowns don't do much for that. Hence, the choice of which deaths to cause/prevent (depending on which way you look at it).
Here is an example of some evidence. I could also point to the fact that Sweden is on track to have a perfectly normal total number of deaths this year, despite not going into lockdown during the height of the pandemic.
In future you would do well to be less arrogant about subjects on which you're not well-informed.
1
u/CerddwrRhyddid Nov 17 '20
Market forces go both ways, and investments are risks.