Would letting the pandemic rip hurt the economy more than lockdowns?
Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2023 2:03 pm
Hi, @Red!
Elsewhere, you said that you think that it's possible that letting the pandemic rip might have even hurt the economy more than lockdowns did. I said that I don't think that's possible, because COVID-19 almost exclusively kills the retired people, who are no longer productive. That didn't convince you, because elderly people provide free childcare and are consumers.
So, here is a paper by Douglas Ward Allen that tries to numerically estimate the cost-benefit ratio of the lockdowns. The key part starts at the page 29:
https://www.sfu.ca/~allen/LockdownRepor ... df#page=29
According to his calculations, even if lockdowns worked as advertized (decreasing deaths from COVID-19 by around 80%), the cost-benefit ratio would be around 3.6:1, meaning that lockdowns damaged the economy 3.6 times as much as "let it rip" would. And he thinks that a much more reasonable estimate (more in line with the empirical data) is 282:1.
I am not an economist (I got a D in my economics course at the university), but his arguments sound compelling to me. How about you, @Red?
Elsewhere, you said that you think that it's possible that letting the pandemic rip might have even hurt the economy more than lockdowns did. I said that I don't think that's possible, because COVID-19 almost exclusively kills the retired people, who are no longer productive. That didn't convince you, because elderly people provide free childcare and are consumers.
So, here is a paper by Douglas Ward Allen that tries to numerically estimate the cost-benefit ratio of the lockdowns. The key part starts at the page 29:
https://www.sfu.ca/~allen/LockdownRepor ... df#page=29
According to his calculations, even if lockdowns worked as advertized (decreasing deaths from COVID-19 by around 80%), the cost-benefit ratio would be around 3.6:1, meaning that lockdowns damaged the economy 3.6 times as much as "let it rip" would. And he thinks that a much more reasonable estimate (more in line with the empirical data) is 282:1.
I am not an economist (I got a D in my economics course at the university), but his arguments sound compelling to me. How about you, @Red?