The data is increasingly clear - for India, the lockdown no longer makes any sense.

To understand this we have to first discuss what is a tradeoff that is acceptable. People shy away from this point but it is important as 1.5lakh reported deaths happen in India due to road accidents per year. We do not close roads. Why? Because that would be on net more harmful.

Around 10million Indians die every year. What is the spike in that number that would make a continued lockdown OK? The answer clearly cannot be 1 it is too little. The answer clearly cannot be 1 million or more it is too high.

But there has to be a number we have to think about.

The fact is that when you do not buy a safer car say to save a few $, you are putting an implied price on your life, your family's lives, and some stranger's lives on the road or in some other car based on your odds of an accident happening and the utility that money has for you.

For example, in US in 2013 EPA estimated value of a life at $9.7million. Department of Transportation placed it at $9.4million in 2014. And DFA put its figure at $9.3million in 2015. Estimates are adjusted for inflation and incomes.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-the-government-puts-a-dollar-value-on-life-1458911310

In India, it is lower.

OK keep this concept aside for a moment.

Now let us come to what we know. USA has 150x more cases/capita than India and 300x more deaths/capita than India as of today. Let us say not continuing lockdown in India spikes our numbers 100x+ to be where USA is today. Hold on to that.

Moreover, while yes there is less testing in India, it is not fully randomised, yes current numbers are partially low due to the lockdown so far (which I supported and continue to think was the right decision at the time) the fact is our rate of positives is one of the lowest.

So now say we open the lockdown and reach US levels. Within the US itself NY state has 5x more cases per capita and 7x more deaths per capita than their national average. So I am basically talking about an almost 1000x jump in our cases from now (deaths bit less so)

So about NY?

We just got to know that 14% of NYS infected based on antibody tests. Out of that mortality rate is 0.5% (say 0.6% including those who died at homes). Ignoring weather, BCG vaccine (yes health adjusted) age structure would mean our worst fatality rate would be much less than that

Say for a moment that fatality rate is 0.2%. Now question is what infected% should we have an educated guess about. In NY state, 1 in 70 or so were confirmed but based on antibody tests it is 1 in 7 or 10x more (NY is ~6x worse than US average which is ~200x worse than us today.)

Before we guess that number, let us understand that we can only slow this thing down before herd immunity or vaccine based immunity takes over. The vaccine is definitely not coming in this calendar year. And any lockdown end will still mean masks and some precautionary measures.

Say we assume 7% infected (which is half of NY state today) due to lockdown being (mostly) lifted. And if we then assume a 0.2% fatality rate as above. That is 0.014% of the total population in the coming months. Which is less than 2lk deaths in an extremely pessimistic scenario.

That is in the rough range of the road accident deaths annual figure mentioned and number of suicides as well. The former will decrease if lockdown extends while latter will spike. Then come the many more deaths due to stress etc (and increasingly less so but still there) hunger.

Moreover on the stimulus point while we can debate if the government and RBI have done enough so far, the simple fact remains that a longer lockdown means an additional deficit as tax revenues fall to that extent. But when we say stimulus we usually mean something on top of that.

While I may think that a consolidated fisc of say 11% of GDP is OK and you may think 9% say (e.g. it clearly cannot be 15%+), every additional week of lockdown clearly makes that math much more difficult. In fact, a timely stop gives us more resources for both health and economy.

Let us say we continue lockdown post first week of May. What would be the stated or real rationale of doing so? And if we don’t people will panic given the unrealistic expectations. I am afraid the opposition CMs are pulling a fast one on the Centre and PM is falling into a trap.

Nuance is at a premium here so my argument is not that we should not have done a lockdown. We should have. The question is whether we should continue this as-is beyond the first week of May. It is for the second question that answer is a big No. We have to be much more targeted.

Yes I know that is the stated plan as of now. But already there has been an extension and I am worried the people have been psyched in such a manner that it might tip any future decision towards another extension and that would be a massive mistake for the country. Must avoid it.