It was somewhere in the middle of March 2020 when management came into the office with a different kind of tone. It was impossible to not overhear the talk of potentially getting everyone to work from home. Calls to HR were being made, ordering more IT equipment to facilitate the whole company working from home, “just in case”. This was the moment I knew something different was happening, something serious.
In recent memory, we’ve had the Ebola outbreak, which I remember learning about as one of (if not) the most terrifying virus known to man. The virus causes a terminal haemorrhagic fever, breaking down cell membranes in the body, essentially liquifying the organs. With a potential mortality rate of 90%, a reproductive rate from 1.7 to 1.9, and an average incubation period of 12.7 days.  I actually remember watching the news, looking around and thinking “why the hell is no one worried about this?”.
Yet, people dismiss the lack of preemptive action from the government on the Ebola outbreak, regarding the preparation of society for potential economic calamity. No contingency work meetings, no panic buying of toilet rolls, no shaming of people getting a bit to close to one another, attending football matches, concerts or opening shops, no talks of mandatory vaccines. The excuse? “It didn’t spread very far” or “it stayed in West Africa”.
This is somewhat false, Ebola arrived briefly, here in the UK! The advice at the time was “There is no need for people in the UK to act differently, either now or even if we discovered a case of Ebola here”. Never was it suggested that the whole world’s economy could be shutting down as part of a contain or ‘slowing the spread’ strategy. To protect the NHS. To save lives. Nothing suggested the possibility that the economy itself could all but shut down for several months. Nothing. 
Fast forward a few years and today and we have a new virus. At it’s peak, a similar reproduction rate (as of 15 May 2020, the reproduction rate was between 0.7 and 1.0) and a similar incubation period albeit a far lower mortality rate.  Yet, somehow causing total havoc across the globe, leaving world leaders, in all their insufferable ineptitude, to stretch the media’s legs and potentially risking further civil and/or global polarity and ultimately, conflict.
What does this tell us? It tells us that when the threat to human life is genuinely severe for everyone, the government are in-and-out with remarkable efficiency. They don’t invest in media to hypnotise us with noxious mantras, to alter our behaviour, appealing for people to snitch on their neighbours thus potentially damaging important personal relationships and trust within their local community. It also tells us that a virus with a high reproductive cycle and incubation period can be beaten without going into lockdown.
In some ways, the lockdown can be compared to chemotherapy as a treatment for cancer. The treatment kills all cells indiscriminately, we have to hope that it kills the cancer before it kills you. Whilst it is argued correctly that chemo does destroy cancer cells, it also destroys everything else in your body. Including your immune system and therefore, your ability to effectively defend yourself against many other threatening virus’ and bacterial infections. Thus, requiring the patient to take more drugs to treat a whole daisy chain of side effects, which go on to create more side effects that then need more drugs, and so on.
“What are the alternatives?” the best treatment for cancer is always a personal choice, and I would always support someone’s personal choice, it’s not my place to judge. We can still discuss it though, can’t we? Without someone coming along with a story about their relative who has died of cancer, only for the purpose of shutting you up because they don’t like people talking about it (like most of us haven’t lost someone to cancer at some point and aren’t allowed to speak about it). There are many backed-up and supported alternative theories, aimed at preventing cancer, that draw many parallels to ‘alternatives to strict lockdown’ ideas. Research that focuses immense value in the cultivating of healthier eating and lifestyle habits, to support a kind-of ‘immune system-driven herd immunity’ against cancer.
Granted, the lockdown seems to have indeed saved lives, although the exact figure of that success may be impossible to truly visualise, I believe the number of lives it will cost in the long term will completely overshadow it. Already, only a few months in and we are already seeing a huge rise in suicides, domestic violence cases, cancer screenings and other diseases experiencing costly delays, new prescriptions for anti-depressants come flooding in and waiting lists for mental health services are growing. 
The lockdown will end, and once the government’s support diminishes and ultimately ends with it, tens of thousands of people will find their businesses (which are often an accumulation of their life’s work and personal sacrifices) will not be waiting for them when they return. It’s clear to me and many others that the number of stories relating to a rise in lockdown-related suicide and personal crisis, is not going any where but up. People will be haunted by the negative effects of the lockdown for a generation to come. This is the true avalanche we should all be worried about.
By speaking out about the lockdown, you are appealing for balance in the ongoing public discussion, you are recognising that saving a few thousand people today, at the cost of potentially hundreds of thousands in the years to come, is not a success but rather a false victory and a bastardisation of good scientific reasoning. You recognise that worse viruses have been beaten, without the need to cause widespread panic and mass social engineering. You can see that it could be possible to have a lockdown that’s more bespoke to the small group of people most vulnerable.
An economy is supposed to be like a moving river, if the river stops, it goes stagnant and life becomes much more difficult. Right now, most of people’s income being supplemented by the governments support packages, is being syphoned off into the pockets of tax avoiding corporations as the world’s richest have already gained $255 billion in just two months of the pandemic.  The money that is being spent isn’t returning much back to the state in the way of tax. The economy is literally haemorrhaging.
You are not being money obsessed for understanding that the strength in the economy isn’t in it’s total monetary value but rather it is the combination of it’s total worth and being in a state of constant back-and-forth exchange. The notion that it’s the billionaires who are only want us going back to work because they need us to make money, is complete gibberish. The billionaires are already profiting nicely from the lockdown. By opening the economy up, we are keeping that opportunity away from the billionaires and opening those opportunities back up to smaller, independent businesses who desperately need it. All the modern healthcare services that we have taken for granted to date, are only made possible by a large, working economy holding it up.
It’s unfathomable that so many people would rather believe that people don’t care about human life, than accept that thinking about the long-term survival of our economic infrastructure, which includes the healthcare sector, is probably the more caring position to take. With talk of a second and maybe even a third wave that are alleged to have a higher cost to life, how long do people think it can last without the economy?
If you have any links that would support this article or even a counter argument, please share them with your response in the comments