I definitely agree with your overall point that mental health should have been addressed more during lockdown but imho your final claim is a bit ‘reckless’ for lack of a better term. Even overlooking any statistical/quality issues with these studies, comparing the likelihood of adverse mental health outcomes due to lockdown and likelihood of adverse health consequences of COVID-19 as a disease is meaningless at best (directly comparing likelihood of outcomes due to a governmental lockdown policy vs due to a biological disease is not meaningful) and at worst risks implying there is some statistically verifiable associative/causal benefit of rolling back early COVID-19 lockdown efforts in exchange for increased mental health. Just my take. Really appreciate your time!
LimeStorm3 karma
Thank you for sharing your expertise!
I definitely agree with your overall point that mental health should have been addressed more during lockdown but imho your final claim is a bit ‘reckless’ for lack of a better term. Even overlooking any statistical/quality issues with these studies, comparing the likelihood of adverse mental health outcomes due to lockdown and likelihood of adverse health consequences of COVID-19 as a disease is meaningless at best (directly comparing likelihood of outcomes due to a governmental lockdown policy vs due to a biological disease is not meaningful) and at worst risks implying there is some statistically verifiable associative/causal benefit of rolling back early COVID-19 lockdown efforts in exchange for increased mental health. Just my take. Really appreciate your time!
View HistoryShare Link