Were the Lockdowns Worth It? Not Quite…

Why Improvement Is Needed for Future COVID Lockdowns While Maintaining Positive, Unexpected Side-Effects

Over two years on from the first global lockdown, as we begin to live with the COVID19 virus and life returns to “normal,” we find ourselves retrospectively evaluating whether the lockdowns were worth it. In other words, did they have a positive, lasting impact, especially as certain countries are under lockdowns again. This essay will argue that lockdowns, if executed more thoughtfully, would have been worth the negatives that also resulted. However, multiple misdemeanors and misjudgments unfortunately outweighed the potential positives. In fact, the one central, positive impact was actually a happy accident, a side-effect, rather than an intended outcome. Firstly, I will argue that policy-makers’ misjudgments have disrupted a possible balance of saving lives while securing a healthy economy – two factors often thought to be mutually exclusive but that I will propose are inextricably linked. Secondly, I will examine the impact of a trend of negative relationships formed between governments and their constituencies as a result of duplicitous policy making and government behaviors. Thirdly, I will advocate for the overall positive environmental changes – an unexpected effect of the lockdowns. Overall, I believe that although the 2020 lockdowns benefited the environment, the inappropriate execution in other aspects brought down their worth, suggesting that should the world lockdown again, drastic changes must be made.

   While lockdowns reduce in-person social gatherings to lessen the chances of virus transmission, multiple national economies suffered considerably because of them. Obviously, decreasing interactions ultimately saved lives, which was paramount to the lockdowns. The first ever lockdown that occurred in Hubei province of China proves this case, as: “following the [Hubei] lockdown, cases began to slow. On 19 March [2020], China’s National Health Commission reported no new confirmed infections in Hubei” (Samantha Sault 2020). Their method of lockdown was soon applied globally, and analyzing 49 other countries, “The lockdown… has been observed to prevent the COVID-19 pandemic” (A. Atalan 2020). Yet, locking down for too long in order to save more lives detrimentally impacted economies. A study on UK’s lockdown policies, for instance, suggests that as time pushed on, the lockdown’s original worth seemed less obvious. A study published on the International Journal of Clinical Practice proved this by comparing GDP loss with lives-saved. In the study, GDP loss is converted directly to billions of pounds lost while lives-saved is turned into the number of QALYs (Quality Adjusted Life Years) and multiplied by the NICE threshold of £30,000. This threshold measures how much money is needed to save one QALY. This way, both values are turned into pounds, allowing the authors to conclude that, “for every permutation of lives saved and GDP lost, the costs of lockdown exceed[ed] the benefits by a wide margin” (David K. Miles, et al. 2020). This showcases the increasing phenomenon where countries struggle to balance saving sick individuals with saving their economy, which is an important repercussion for capitalistic societies that are based on generating goods. From some angles, saving lives only to introduce them back into an unhealthy economy might lead to further depletion of life quality. Some of the originally saved people may end up dying from poverty. Indeed, a country’s economic value is linked tightly to its citizen’s wages and the rates of unemployment. For instance, in America’s case, “one year after the pandemic started, there [were] still 8.4 million fewer jobs in the United States economy” (ECLAC 2021). It proves that lockdowns directly raised unemployment levels by denying face-to-face service jobs. This creates anxiety for individuals who struggle to pay for their daily fees and hinders a country’s economic development.

   It may appear that saving lives alongside crippling an economy are trade-offs of lockdowns, and are direct opposites. However, I believe they are linked and can be improved together. There are ways to maximize the effectiveness of lockdowns towards saving lives while also allowing the economy to recover. Yet, our lack of experience in dealing with pandemics steered us off this optimum balance. France, being similar to other central European Union countries, serves as a good example. An article from Frontiers in Public Health says that governments interpreting situations more conclusively and utilizing better methods would have permitted France to reduce 5.83 million COVID-19 cases and boost their economy by 10 billion euros, an improvement for both the economy and mortality rates. Unfortunately, this did not occur. France should have, “… implement[ed] [an] optimal 4−phase epidemic management strategy … [to lead] to 1.05 million of infected people and a GDP loss of 231 billion euros instead of [the] actual 6.88 million of infected [people] and a loss of 241 billion euros [that resulted from mistakes made]” (Samson Lasaulce, et al. 2021). Therefore, despite the fact that people assume saving lives must therefore lead to a negative impact on the economy, what Lasaulce et al suggest is that with the correct management, they can both positively impact each other. One does not have to be improved at the detriment of another. These negative impacts put a strain on the positive ones, making the lockdowns not fully worth the repercussions that resulted. Even governmental financial aid aimed to make improvements seemed to fail miserably.

   Demonstrated in the previous section, with such drastic losses to salaries, governments needed to issue subsidies to ensure people’s livelihood through the lockdowns. Subsidies should strengthen government-citizen relationships as people begin to recognize their governments as a source of help in times of extreme need. However, when subsidies are inadequate, people question their government’s priorities. In the US, for instance, Congress issued its first stimulus check with an accompanying letter from former President Donald Trump, whose tenure was about to end. In his letter, it is clear that the check, one that was grossly inadequate to cover all monthly costs, was used as an opportunity for the President to accrue future voters. Mr. Trump wrote that he and his team were providing, “fast and direct economic assistance” to citizens. This statement purposely paints the government as a benevolent and efficient team, worthy of reelection. But like most politicians, these words were not backed up by actions sufficient for all American people. The first stimulus aid was a one-time $600 per individual check that aimed to cover one’s daily spendings.

   But, a poll finds that “in places like New York City…, the maximum stimulus check will hardly be enough for one month’s rent” (Prachi Bhardwaj 2020). After using the stimulus check to pay debts, New Yorkers found themselves still penniless like before, yet the lockdowns continued. Furthermore, New York wasn’t alone in the struggle to make ends meet. Move.org, an organization detailing living expenses in the U.S. finds that “the average cost of groceries in America is $355.50 a month per person” (Joe Roberts 2021). Although values may vary regionally, on average, a normal person’s stimulus check would barely buy them two months’ food - that is without factoring in all of the other living expenses. Yet, the lockdowns lasted almost two years! Although two further stimulus checks raised the amount of money, they still did little to help consistently. This negative situation leads to a weakening of confidence in our elected representatives, which is detrimental for countries in an already challenging COVID-19 crisis. Instead, governments should raise financial aid even more. This is their duty, and perhaps saving moneyless individuals can help the future economy after the lockdowns. But stimulus checks aren’t the only problem needing fixing; the dubious standards set by our elected leaders have caused even more distrust of them, triggering drastic changes to political positions. For instance, after breaking lockdown rules, the British Prime Minister’s Chief Advisor: Dominic Cummings, was eventually forced to resign. The Mirror reports that Mr. Cummings drove his family 260 miles to his parent’s house after his wife was suspected of COVID-19, despite government restrictions against it (Harrison Jones 2020). That was April 2020, not long after the lockdown rules calling for isolation from relatives were announced, with, “Matt Hancock, the Health Secretary, … [telling] the nation on April 3 that advice to stay at home was ‘not a request’ but an ‘instruction’” (Harrison Jones 2020). According to The Lancet, “… Google Trends showed that public searches of Dominic Cummings' name peaked 3 days later... This peak coincided with the steepest decline in confidence in government” (D. Fancourt, A. Steptoe, L. Wright 2020). Further comparison between England, Scotland, and Wales proves that the decline in confidence and Mr. Cummings’ activities were actually linked (D. Fancourt, et al. 2020). What The Lancet and google trends didn’t know back then was that a steeper decline in trust was yet to come: Party Gate, anyone? When citizens distrust their government, they will distrust the government-created rules, and refuse to strictly follow them. This means that regulations become, for a period of time, useless. Without carefully performed lockdowns, success will not be achieved consistently. Therefore, a mounting distrust in governments adds layers onto the costs of these lockdowns.

   However, despite the negatives, there were side-effects that proved to be beneficial. In 2020, citizens everywhere were forced to reduce traveling, limiting for the first time in unprecedented quantities, the emission of pollutive gasses. Examining thirty different studies, Environment, Development, and Sustainability concluded that, “The level of particulate matters like PM2.5 and PM10 significantly decrease 43% and 31%, respectively, in the lower atmosphere of the different regions of globe” (Harekrishna Bar 2021). “PM2.5” and “PM10” are extremely small particles in the air, with a diameter of 2.5 and 10 micrometers, respectively (National Pollutant Inventory). These are two of the main components of air pollution. COVID19 lockdown regulations banned gatherings, achieving two results. Firstly, automobile transportation lessened as all entertainments were canceled. Secondly, most factories burning coal for production had to temporarily shut off. Ultimately, this led to an improved air quality by substantially reducing pollution. Indeed, according to an article in Science of the Total Environment,“ […] Levels of air pollution in New York… [for instance] dropped almost 50% due to measures … to restrict the spread of [the] virus. In China, emissions data shows a 25% decrease at the starting point of the year” (Saeida Saadat et. Al 2020). Normally, air pollution harms one’s health by causing throat irritation, coughing and chest discomfort. Long-term exposure can also have consequences of lung cancer and death. This applies to both humans and other animals. At first glance, one may think that the lockdown created value by cleaning the air. However, this was not the intended purpose of lockdowns. It may in fact just be a favorable accident, and accidents can’t convincingly outweigh the harms caused by misjudgments and errors.

   In conclusion, this essay proposes that miscalculations steered us off a balance between saving lives and saving the economy, and led to a worsening of government-citizen relationships. One factor, air quality, which seems to be positive overall, was a fortunate coincidence. Now, being at full productivity and capacity again, the PM levels will have risen. It is difficult to evaluate the long-term impact brought on by humans’ short period of “disappearance.” Looking back, we can learn ways to better execute further lockdowns, which are crucial to fighting future viruses. Even better, we have observed how our previous actions harm the air, learning now from experience that our changes can have positive contributions. This is crucial as we try to save Earth’s natural ecosystem and animals facing direct effects of climate change. Although it may be illogical to lockdown again just to save the air and the environment, there are behaviors that we can change, such as using cars less. The lockdowns, though perhaps not worth it in the end when pitted against human expectations for mortality and economy, proved that even small changes in our lives can make a difference in mitigating the impacts of climate change. Perhaps a better question than whether the lockdowns were worth it would be: what positives that resulted from the Covid-19 lockdowns can be applied to another urgent pandemic facing the globe: climate change?

Bibliography :

1. Atalan, Abdulkadir. “Is the lockdown important to prevent the COVID-19 pandemic? Effects on psychology, environment and economy-perspective.” National Center for Biotechnology Information, 14 Jun. 2020, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7293850/

2. Bar, Harekrishna. “COVID-19 lockdown: animal life, ecosystem and atmospheric environment” Environment, Development and Sustainability, vol.23, Jun. 2021, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10668-020-01002-7

3. Bhardwaj, Prachi. “60% of Americans Say Their Stimulus Check Isn't Enough, New Money Poll Finds” Money.com, 22 Apr. 2020, https://money.com/stimulus-checkcoronavirus-money-survey/ 4. E.C.L.A.C., “United States economic outlook: 2020 in review and early 2021 developments.” Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, 4 May 2020, https://www.cepal.org/en/notes/united-states-economic-outlook-2020-reviewand-early-2021- developments#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20economy%20lost%209.4%20million %20jobs,added%20and%20the%20unemployment%20rate%20fell%20to%206%25.

5. Fancourt, D., et al. “The Cummings effect: politics, trust, and behaviours during the COVID-19 pandemic.” The Lancet, vol. 396, 15 Aug. 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31690-1

6. Jones, Harrison. “What is Dominic Cummings accused of doing and did he break lockdown rules?” Metro, 24 May 2020, https://metro.co.uk/2020/05/24/what-dominiccummings-accused-did-break-lockdown-rules-12750208/

7. Lasaulce, S., et al. “Analysis of the Tradeoff Between Health and Economic Impacts of the Covid-19 Epidemic.” Frontiers in Public Health, 9:620770, 5 Mar. 2021, doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.620770

8. Miles, David K., et al. “‘Stay at Home, Protect the National Health Service, Save Lives’: A Cost Benefit Analysis of the Lockdown in the United Kingdom.” International Journal of Clinical Practice, 21 Sep. 2020, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ijcp.13674.

9. Roberts, Joe. “The average cost of food in the US” Move.org, 2021, https://www.move.org/the-average-cost-of-food-in-the-us/

10. Saadat, S., et al. “Environmental Perspectives of COVID-19.” Science of The Total Environment, vol.728, 2020., https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969720323871

11. Sault, Samantha. “Why lockdowns can halt the spread of COVID-19.” World Economic Forum, 21 Mar. 2020, https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/03/why-lockdownswork-epidemics-coronavirus-covid19/

12. Trump, Donald J. Letter to American citizens. 24 April 2020. White House, Washington DC.