Iains appears to be confused on this one:
Dichotomy suggests lockdown and harm to the economy are unrelated. The longer the shutdown the more the economy suffers. The latter is dirctly related to the former,
Either they are related, or they are not. You can't argue it both ways in a single paragraph.

Jim is correct The row in teh cabinet now being described as "a split" indicates that lockdown and the economy most certainly are related although I don't see that the 'split' in the cabinet either proves or disproves it.

Lockdown is reducing the income of many people, meaning they have less to spend, and so the circulation effect of money reduces turnover and profits.
Many businesses are closed (temporarily at least) and are providing neither goods nor services. Neither are they generating profits for their owners, or taxes for the country.
The Government (using our money, or freshly 'created' money) is supporting both the above groups, being a cost to the country which will not see a matching benefit, apart from 1, keeping more people alive, 2, preventing an even more serious crash as those who are not working run out of funds.

For the three reasons above I agree with Jim that there is an inextricable link between the lockdown, and harm to the economy.