Question

pls weite a short not on india under lockdown highlighting the impact of the indian economy and on the common man pls tell if tell the answer i will mark ur answer as the brilliant answer​

Answer 1

in countries such as India, with young demographics, such a lockdown causes more human suffering that Covid-19 itself. This continuing lockdown is, unfortunately, making it ever more inevitable that India will suffer a consumer lending cycle

Answer 2

$\huge\mathfrak\red{Your Answer}$

If the first option of dealing with Covid-19 by imposing a complete lockdown but accompanied by comprehensive State support is not possible, then we must think of alternatives. Here is an implementable option for India that would open a lifeline for the poor.

On March 24, 2020, the Government of India ordered a nationwide lockdown for 21 days as a preventive measure against the spread of the coronavirus. The lockdown — in full force as we write — restricts 1.3 billion people from leaving their homes. Transport services are suspended, educational institutions are closed, and factories are shut down.

This is in line with the measures imposed in most European countries and in the United States, but the sheer scale of the measure — as in the case of most policies in India — is intimidating. Add to this the grim truth of Indian occupational structure and poverty, and you would likely predict what we now see: unending streams of migrants trying to find their way home, the fear of loss of all income, deep privations, and even (in the space of days) hunger, starvation and death.

The Indian experience highlights, in a visceral way, both the Scylla of widespread viral infection and the Charybdis of socio-economic lockdown.

The Indian experience highlights, in a visceral way, both the Scylla of widespread viral infection and the Charybdis of socio-economic lockdown. It is not a choice between lives on the one hand and loss of economic production on the other. Because India is so poor and because her occupational structure so un-amenable to being shifted online, it is a question of lives versus lives: the nightmarish culmination of all those philosophical trolley problems that we so wish were innocently confined to the classroom.

We want to be explicit about this ethical approach: lives versus lives.

One view — implicit, for instance, in arguments made in certain quarters in the US — is that there must be some allowable tradeoff between economic well-being and human lives. We do not subscribe to that view, and entertain no such tradeoff. Therefore, our first choice in the fight against Covid-19 would be for governments to implement a comprehensive general lockdown, provided that this is accompanied by comprehensive State support for compensating welfare measures aimed at protecting the health, nutrition, and psychological well-being of all households. Many have called for such measures. But calling for them is one thing, and implementing them another. What if the State is unable or unwilling to provide that support to all families under lockdown? Then households are exposed to the profound morbidity and mortality risks that stem from the loss of incomes and jobs, not to mention their constricted freedom of mobility, heightened psychological stress, enhanced prospects of domestic violence, and indeed, perhaps greater vulnerability to the virus itself.

$<marquee>$ HOPE IT HELPS YOU PLS MARK AS BRAINLIEST