Pandemic lockdown, healthcare policies and human rights: integrating opposed views on COVID-19 public health mitigation measures.

The issue of the COVID-19 pandemic occupies the agenda of the whole world. The pivot of this pandemic is a crucial element that has become almost as important as the virus itself, namely the lockdown. Although, the rationale for lockdown is well-sustained by strong epidemiological arguments, exploring the 'other' unwanted consequences of the contemporary COVID-19 pandemic is mandatory for coagulating a robust agreed position against the numerous problems generated by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Starting from the rationale of the lockdown, in this paper we explored and exposed the other consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic measures such as the use or abuse of human rights and freedom restrictions, economic issues, marginalized groups and eclipse of all other diseases. Our scientific attempt is to coagulate a stable position and integrate current opposing views by advancing the idea that rather than applying the uniform lockdown policy, one could recommend instead an improved model targeting more strict and more prolonged lockdowns to vulnerable risk/age groups while enabling less stringent measures for the lower-risk groups, minimizing both economic losses and deaths. Rigorous (and also governed by freedom) debating may be able to synchronize the opposed perspectives between those advocating an extreme lockdown (e.g., most of the epidemiologists and health experts), and those criticizing all restrictive measures (e.g., economists and human rights experts). Confronting the multiple facets of the public health mitigation measures is the only way to avoid contributing to history with yet another failure, as seen in other past epidemics.