Losses are definite, benefits doubtful.

"The first two phases of the lockdown led to 14-29 lakh (1.4-2.9 million) COVID-19 cases to be averted while the number of lives saved in that period was between 37,000 and 78,000, the government said on Friday citing various studies, and asserted that the unprecedented shutdown has paid "rich dividends" in the fight against the pandemic." Possible, but that does not prove that such a stringent lockdown was necessary and other measures would not have worked just as well, or even better. When the lockdown was announced on 24 March the total number of confirmed infections stood at 564 and 10 people had died. According to a Stringency Index devised by Oxford University, India stood highest at 100. And yet, after 60 days of lockdown, number of new infections are rising by record levels, adding 6,767 confirmed cases in the last 24 hours. South Korea has been remarkably successful without a complete lockdown. "South Korea -- which in February had the largest outbreak outside of China -- used a combination of widespread testing, aggressive contact tracing, stern public health measures and digital technology to contain the coronavirus without having to impose widespread lockdown. It also maintained a strict quarantine regime." "India may witness Covid-19 cases peaking in mid-July if the current lockdown is lifted this month-end but expected to be a 'lower surge' due to strong containment measures in the past nearly two months, a noted public health expert and epidemiologist said on Thursday." To that extent, we can say that infections and consequent deaths have been postponed, and not prevented, as claimed by the government. According to the journal Lancet, "when we count the number of deaths from COVID-19 in each country 1 year from now, the figures will be similar, regardless of measures taken", wrote Ramanath Jha. Even without a lockdown, the South Korean economy is expected to contract this year. The effect on India has been disastrous, with Goldman Sachs predicting a 45% contraction in the July-September quarter and a 5% contraction for the entire financial year 2020-21. If we take India's nominal GDP as Rs 200 trillion then 5% loss comes to Rs 10 trillion. Even at Rs 4,500 per test, India could have tested over 20 million people. Mass testing should have been cheaper. This would have allowed confining only confirmed cases so that some economic activity could continue and loss to the nation reduced. More importantly, migrant laborers would not have to walk, cycle or pay exorbitant sums of money to try and get back to their villages to avoid starvation as they suddenly lost all income due to the lockdown. "Those who have lost everything and are still trying desperately to reach a place far away called home have been lathi charged, blocked at borders, cheated, sent to camps and generally treated as subhumans," wrote Manoj Joshi. This, by a prime minister who has been announcing one social scheme after another with taxpayer money, apparently to help the poor. Not surprising that the Prime Minister is hailed as the "jumla raja" or 'king of bluff'.