It does make it different in the sense that the consequences of lockdowns and covid are not only death. They have other severe consequences which did in fact happen such as businesses going bankrupt, increase in mental health, child/abuse etc. These are the direct results of models predicting worse case scenario's, with fear as the most important tool to create compliance. The question i have with this, besides the ethical side of it, where is the fine line? There are many examples to mention where politicians used fear for predictions that didn't happen to suit a certain interest/agenda of kind.
quote:
'Reliance on fear for public health messaging now could further erode trust in public health officials and scientists at a critical juncture.
The nation desperately needs a strategy that can help break through pandemic denialism and through the politically charged environment, with its threatening and at times hysterical rhetoric that has created opposition to sound public health measures.Even if ethically warranted, fear-based tactics may be dismissed as just one more example of political manipulation and could carry as much risk as benefit.
Instead, public health officials should boldly urge and, as they have during other crisis periods in the past, emphasize what has been sorely lacking: consistent, credible communication of the science at the national level.
full article:
https://news.osu.edu/why-using-fear-to-promote-covid-19-vaccination-and-mask-wearing-could-backfire/