{"title":"India's Lockdown*","authors":"Debraj Ray, S. Subramanian, L. Vandewalle","doi":"10.4324/9781003220145-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In response to the Covid-19 pandemic, a prolonged and stringent lockdown unaccompanied by adequate State provisioning of welfare support could lead to distress and loss of life in developing countries like India. The problem is particularly acute in settings with widespread informality and casual labor arrangements, along with inadequate private savings to withstand a crisis. Lives compromised by the rigors of lockdown would then need to be weighed against lives rescued from Covid-19 infection, with the further complication of reckoning whose lives - either lost or saved - would be involved in the tradeoff. This leads to what might be termed a “lives versus lives” perspective on the problem. That perspective, while still favoring a lockdown - provided compensatory relief measures are fully implemented - leads to the prescription of a relaxed lockdown when those measures are inadequate. Such a prescription is strengthened when the vast majority of the population is under the age of 60. In the relaxed lockdown, the working-age population is allowed to work, while affording protection to the elderly and pursuing a relentless campaign of testing, tracing and quarantining. This approach to the problem is discussed in the present chapter. © 2022 selection and editorial matter, Rajib Bhattacharyya, Ananya Ghosh Dastidar and Soumyen Sikdar;individual chapters, the contributors.","PeriodicalId":113535,"journal":{"name":"The COVID-19 Pandemic, India and the World","volume":"205 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"19","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The COVID-19 Pandemic, India and the World","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003220145-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 19
为应对2019冠状病毒病大流行,在没有国家提供足够福利支持的情况下,长期和严格的封锁可能会给印度等发展中国家带来痛苦和生命损失。在非正规劳动和临时劳动安排普遍存在、私人储蓄不足以抵御危机的情况下,这个问题尤其严重。因此,需要将严格封锁造成的生命损失与从Covid-19感染中获救的生命进行权衡,并进一步计算谁的生命——无论是失去的还是拯救的——将涉及权衡。这导致了可能被称为“生命对生命”的观点。这种观点虽然仍然赞成封锁——前提是补偿性救济措施得到充分实施——但导致在这些措施不够时放松封锁。当绝大多数人口年龄在60岁以下时,这种处方会得到加强。在放松的封锁中,适龄劳动人口可以工作,同时为老年人提供保护,并开展不懈的检测、追踪和隔离运动。本章将讨论这种解决问题的方法。©2022选择和编辑事项,Rajib Bhattacharyya, Ananya Ghosh Dastidar和Soumyen Sikdar;个人章节,贡献者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。