The cost of the lockdown | thearticle

It’s been reported recently that Rishi Sunak is pushing for an end to the UK’s coronavirus lockdown. The Chancellor is said to have warned his Cabinet colleagues that the government should

strike a balance between protecting the health of the nation and its economy, which the Office for Budget Responsibility suggested could shrink by 35 per cent by June. Our new restricted way

of living may have been fairly comfortable for some people. We’re able to catch up on TV that we haven’t got round to yet; perhaps finally get through the novels we’ve pretended to have

read. I suspect that despite occasional complaints about not being able to go to the pub, lockdown may actually have come as a welcome change of pace for many people. No more commute; no

more awkward work drinks; more time to concentrate on self-improvement. In this context, lockdown can’t go on long enough. Why risk it? There’s a deadly virus out on the streets that’s been

killing nearly 1,000 people a day just in hospitals, and almost certainly many more when deaths in care homes and elsewhere are included. But there is a human cost to the lockdown. It

doesn’t come in stark daily death updates like Covid-19, but it’s still there. We may just learn about its real impact on our nation’s health in the months and years ahead, rather than every

day. Two million people could have lost their jobs by June, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility report. Some of these jobs will surely return as businesses reopen, but many

will not, at least for a while. As is well documented, the public health consequences of mass unemployment are dire. According to a report by the University of Oxford and the London School

of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, the recession of 2008 led to 10,000 extra suicides in Europe and North America across the three following years. The study also found that job losses, debt

and home repossessions were significant factors in the deaths. A similar study by Zurich University found that the uncertainty and stress created by the fear of job losses could lead to

higher suicide rates. This is without even discussing the health impact of deferred operations; and the danger to people facing domestic abuse. A lot of the criticism of the government after

it delayed closing pubs and restaurants, and allowed major events like the Cheltenham festival and the infamous Stereophonics concert in Cardiff to go ahead was that they were putting

profit before people. I understand that argument — but the idea that shutting large sections of the economy for weeks at a time is something that can be rushed into is fanciful. There is no

way to “put the economy before people”, because without people, there is no economy. And when people lose jobs in great enough numbers, more people struggle, and more will die. The economic

effect of the lockdown is already being felt. Food banks, often the last safety net before destitution in a country that has undergone ten years of cuts, are feeling the pinch — donations

are drying up. Charities are also set to lose out on £3.7 billion over the next three months, although the government has promised compensation to the tune of £750 million. Yes, the

government is offering payments for many who’ve lost work. But 80 per cent of an already-low salary doesn’t amount to much. And the scheme for self-employed people doesn’t kick in until

June, so millions more will have to rely on meagre and inefficient Universal Credit for months. The government will review the restrictions on movement on Thursday. The _Times_ has reported

that the current measures will stay in place until at least May 7, with deaths related to coronavirus still not at their peak. As other countries have shown, radical restrictions on movement

reduce transmission and death rates. But there must come a time when we consider the insidious and creeping long-term health effects of mass joblessness; and when we remember that the

economy is not just lines and numbers on a page, but made of human lives.