The number of women drinking at “high-risk” levels rose by 55 per cent during the first lockdown, while the number of young adults smoking rose by one quarter.

A study funded by Cancer Research UK found that among men, prevalence of high-risk drinking rose by 31 per cent during the period, with a more steep rise seen among women.

At the same time, there was a 25 per cent increase in 18 to 34-year-olds who smoke, which translated into a rise of more than 652,000 young adults, the charity said.

Not that we particularly believe those figures. “High-risk” drinking for women seems to be in a week what journalists know as lunch. Nor is this to say that lockdowns were or were not proportionate.

It is though to insist upon the base lesson of economics. Many things have benefits, all things have costs. The trick is to try to find the right balance. Yes, lockdown might well have increased drinking and smoking. It certainly left cancers untreated and all three of those will lead to deaths that could have been - well, not avoided as none of us do get out of here alive - delayed.

If this were about the Black Death and graveyards overflowing with a third of the total population then proportionality would be obvious. It’s possible to mutter that perhaps it isn’t at present. But again that’s not quite our point here.

The true cost of anything is what is given up to gain it. As it appears in the textbooks, opportunity costs. This means that we cannot gain anything - say, a low death rate from an endemic or pandemic disease - without bearing the cost of some of something else. The message here being more deaths from some other cause.

It’s a harsh truth and one brought to us by economics but it applies to life in general. There are no solutions, only trade offs. The game is to find the best one of those available.