A total lock down is expected to bring in zero transmission of the pandemic novel corona virus, so there will be no casualty from the nCOVID-19 within that country.

The total lockdown is directed into health benefits, but you ask about ecconomic benefits. It is obvious that the the economic costs of lockdown exceed the benefits. The question is if it is ethical to agree for many additional infections and deaths for faster economic growth? The economic consequences of total lockdown are also diversified in different countries. In some developing countries, where higher economic growth is crucial for providing the satisfaction of basic needs (food etc.) it has different meaning than in developed countries where higher growth enables to satisfy the additional and unnecessary needs (new mobile phone, new car, bigger flat etc.). It leads to such a compromise: in developing countries it creates a choice between deaths from the Covid or deaths from starvation, in developed countries it is a compromise between less deaths or new mobile phones, cars etc... Of course my anaysis is vary basic and the processes are more complicated... I presented the opinion only to highlight some ethical aspects related to the issue.

I do agree with Dr Piotr Lasak about the ethical issues of this. A total lockdown is one end of the continuum and as Dr Syed Naimul Wadood responded, it would prevent transmission of the virus. As Dr Lasak outlined, it would mean different things to different countries. From this perspective, it would seem the most appropriate response for each country to move along the continuum from total lockdown to regaining total freedom (if that is ever a possibility) to balance the health and the economic aspects to its own structure and needs.

29 May MMXX

May I make a suggestion?

Make a list of the benefits.

Make another list of what is not beneficial.

Then compare the two.

Cordially...

ASJ

29 May MMXX

I want to make a suggestion.

Why not make a list of the benefits and what not is beneficial. Then compare the two.

Cordially...

ASJ

Thank you Syed Naimul Wadood, Piotr Lasak and Mary C. W. Wilson for your contributions. Will it be ideal to surmise from your responses that total lockdown of the economy to curb the rising spread of COVID-19 infection is beneficial to developed countries and destructive to developing & underdevelop countries of the world?

@ Anthony St John, thank you for your response too........it will be nice & more educative if you can proffer solutions to your suggestions & analyze the merits and demerits from your findings

To my dear colleague that responded in Arabic, thank you for your valuable contribution.

Although, I don't have a basic understanding of Arabic language, but I believe that your contributions will go a long way to benefit other non-English speaking researchers on this platform.

Thank you Sajad Rajabi for your valuable contribution

Paul: The medical experts say the COVID-19 virus is spread very easily from one person to another through droplets in the air. Wearing a mask and social distancing helps but is no guarantee of safety. Therefore, some government officials are shutting down the economy to help prevent or reduce the spread of the virus.

Additionally, a vaccine will not be available for several months. Therefore, a major benefit of shutting down the economy is to reduce or prevent the spread of this deadly virus.

Hello Paul Stock

Your analysis of the situation was empirical & valuable. Thank you

Health first before wealth!!!!

First of all, economic activities cannot be performed effectively and efficiently when workers and customers are under death threat from Conid-19. There are several options implemented by governments with lockdown as the harshest one in restricting people’s activities. Consequently, the economy may come to a state of hibernation. Conveniently, lockdown enables governments to control the pandemic in a short time. Afterward, economic activities may resume safely.

With a short period of hibernation, the economy is not severely damaged. Savings dampens the economic impact of the lockdown. When the lockdown is concluded, the people will still have purchasing power, and demand will grow back. Accordingly, a deep recession can be avoided. Additionally, the period of lockdown is fixed. This arrangement provides certainty so that the people can adjust their plan and maintain their confidence on the economy.

in order for your question to be answered in a scientific way you have first to determine 'benefit' and, therefore, 'cost'. The obvious benefit would be saving human lives. The obvious cost would be the slowdown in economic activity and limitations in personal freedom. To examine, then the answer to your question, you need to have two countries (or regions) at least and compare them. If in the country with the higher cost (lock-down and limitations) the loss of human lives is less, then would be your answer: Lock-down is not a waste of time.

I hope this is of help.

There are benefits for people who have certain health conditions. However, there are practically no benefits for healthy individuals. For example, I suspect that I had this disease in late January. It caused chills, loss of the sense of taste, and my lungs felt full. I did take an antibiotic. Some symptoms lasted for a couple of weeks. I stayed home during this period. The point is that, for me, this continued lockdown has provided very few benefits, if any. In fact, most people have little or no serious symptoms from this disease. On the other hand, a few people will survive as a result of the lockdown. This is where we ought to focus our energies. Nursing homes and people with known preconditions ought to be locked down. Other people should go about their business. In this way, we will develop herd immunity.

2 June MMXX

Peter, it's not an either-or proposition.

Cordially...

ASJ

Regarding herd immunity; I had been wondering about this, but now have serious second thoughts. See this article, or at least the three sentences of the last paragraph before the acknowledgements:

Randolph, H. E., & Barreiro, L. B. (2020). Herd Immunity: Understanding COVID-19. Immunity, 52(5), 737-741.

Article Herd Immunity: Understanding COVID-19

See this for the full text:

https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Herd+Immunity%3A+Understanding+COVID-19&btnG=

During the initial stage of the lockdown, Govt and other supporting bodies, organizations can do the following -1) Well organized preparation for challenging the pandemic disruptions, 2) Make people aware about the consequences and train them for taking judicious precautions/safeguards, 3) Control the situation of community spread without preparation and 4) Prepare the defence mechanism road maps

Peter Mudiaga Etaware

Total lockdown is meant for virus containment. That is the prime objective and sole target of the measure. This regulatory measure is set to save human lives first.

From the economic perspective, total lockdown benefits the economy on a post-scenario basis. To quantify the likely damages it would have occurred if lockdown measures had not been implemented. If you get to catch the impact, you need to run a simulation analysis.

Discussion Update!!!!!

1. What are the possible options of herd immunity if the ban on lockdown is lifted?

2. Is there an efficient cure or clinical therapy for COVID-19 Infection?

Total lockdown can decrease society's downtime and therefore accelerate the economic recovery. It should be noted that the measure must be guided by sanitary and public health considerations - superior to economic ones.

I think that beyond talking about whether or not there are underlying benefits of the quarantine or lockdown of the economy, the question is, what is the purpose of this? We all know, from what experts have said, that this virus is very contagious and its fatality rate ranges from 4% to 10%, which, if we look at it in aggregate terms, can be very worrying.

Now, the consequences of the quarantine or lockdown of the economy, varies greatly from one country to another; This crisis in developed countries is not the same as in underdeveloped or developing countries. Therefore, here it is essential to bear in mind that, for example, in developing countries, the effects would range from an increase in the rate of extreme poverty, an increase in the rate of malnutrition, to an increase in the rate of crimes, among others, since, obviously, in this type of country there is a high level of informal employment (people who live on day-to-day income). In this way, the state must intervene to prevent these consequences from materializing or becoming more acute.

Well, the problem is people without symptom infect others including ones with precondition. The young people who get COVID19 can carry that to their grandparents or a neighbor with a severe lung disease. Only locking down nursing homes and hospitals cannot prevent that. Moreover, the UK and Sweden failed herd community. In fact, the policy resulted in having too many people killed.

It was to avoid a rise in the number of COVID-19 but it didn't do it. Instead it did the opposite.