THREAD: The #Pakistan govt. has had the view that if we lockdown the country, millions of vulnerable people will be at risk of dying from hunger etc. This perspective, in my view, rests on flawed logic.
Allow me to elaborate.
Allow me to elaborate.
1) Business as usual means that the virus continues to spread. Which means that the privileged few who can afford to sit at home/work from home, will do so. Vulnerable segments will continue to work, which means that the virus will affect them more than elites.
2) Once this crisis hits a tipping point where 100s if not 1000s of death are likely, a lockdown will eventually be the only way out. In that scenario, the economic cost of the lockdown will have to be borne by society, particularly the vulnerable, who are more likely to be sick
3) With business as usual, the duration of the crisis and its peak (in terms of cases and deaths), is likely to be higher than a proactive lockdown. In short, business as usual inflicts long-term pain which will be much higher than short-term pain through a lockdown.
I hope that robust scenario-analysis along the lines that I described above is being done to advise the PM and his team. From my vantage point, a proactive lockdown is a far less painful choice for #Pakistan than an eventual lockdown that follows a tremendous spike in cases. END.
PS - making tough decisions in a crisis, taking prompt action, and protecting the vulnerable is the job of the state. To say that this isn't possible therefore we can't lockdown is a defeatist attitude. I fear this defeatist mentality will wreak havoc on Pakistan and its citizens
