Yes I know what you mean - but what I'm saying is that until you are confident social services etc is properly funded and the causes of child abuse have been eradicated, you have to accept that lockdowns will lead to more child abuse.
Your climate change example, let's say it gets scorching hot everyday in 25 years time due to climate change. The cause of climate change is years of burning fossil fuels. Does that mean going out and sunbathing for 12 hours without sun cream is wise? If you told someone I'm burned because I didn't put suncream on, would it be reasonable for them to say, "ahhhhh, it's not the failure to put suncream on that's caused the sunburn, it's the years of burning fossil fuels. Here's an article on climate change to prove it. Carry on going on outside without suncream as that's not the cause of your problem" If anyone followed that advice, they'd be sunburned to fuck.
You've got make decisions based on the reality of the circumstances at the time, not how you want things to be. And we all know the circumstances for millions of children right now. If at some mythical point we eliminate child abuse and establish a perfect social services system - I could accept you saying lockdowns don't cause suffering for children, but the fact is they do. All I'm saying is it's not a simple choice of lockdowns = no harm/good, no lockdowns = deaths/bad. There's losers in each scenario and the lockdown path disproportionately puts the burden on vulnerable children.
