In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal economists David R. Henderson and Jonathan Lipow review four different studies of the lockdowns. Their conclusions will probably not be surprising to you:
Rather than validating draconian lockdown orders, the latest economic research on Covid-19 suggests that social-distancing efforts in general, and shelter-in-place measures in particular, have done more harm than good. That doesn’t mean that all such measures should be abandoned. “To socially distance or not to socially distance†is not the question. The question should be, what policies actually make sense?
I found two of the studies particularly interesting, this one because of its empirical approach:
In what might turn out to be the best paper on the economics of Covid-19, a team of economists from the University of California, Berkeley carefully evaluated empirical data on social distancing, shelter-in-place orders, and lives saved. To measure the impact of social distancing, they gathered data from cellphones on travel patterns, foot traffic in nonessential businesses, and personal interactions.
Their findings? Social-distancing measures reduced person-to-person contact by about 50%, while harsher shelter-in-place rules reduced contact by only an additional 5%. Then, using data on Covid-19 infection and mortality, they estimated that these measures saved 74,000 lives. Finally, after using demographic data to adjust the VSL—which is lower for older people, who have fewer years to live—the study found that the gross benefit of social distancing has been a mere $250 billion.
That’s “mere” by comparison with the $8 trillion that early estimates assess would be the costs of the deaths that would result from the early projections.
The other paper which I would like to commend to your attention is this one:
To address that, a team of economists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology recently published the results of a study that compared various alternative strategies for limiting the spread of Covid-19. They concluded that twice as many lives could be saved if governments focused limited resources on protecting the most vulnerable people rather than squandering them on those who seem to face almost no risk, such as children.
One of the great advantages of the more limited approach the study identifies is that the incentives are properly aligned. The people at the greatest risk also bear the greatest restrictions while those at relatively low risk also face relatively minor restrictions. I would think that compliance would be better using such an approach than in the one size fits New York all strategies that were actually implemented.
“Social-distancing measures reduced person-to-person contact by about 50%, while harsher shelter-in-place rules reduced contact by only an additional 5%.”
Um, like Sweden. And that additional 5% cost us untold amounts.
“The people at the greatest risk also bear the greatest restrictions while those at relatively low risk also face relatively minor restrictions. I would think that compliance would be better using such an approach than in the one size fits (New York) all strategies that were actually implemented.”
Oh, focused. Now where have I heard that before?
You could also turn the observation into a “those most harmed vs those least harmed” observation. Fauci, smug politicians and the well to do are not very inconvenienced. Everyman is. Some are destroyed. But as we speak the blue national, state and local politicians (and the media) are itching to reinvent fear with dire second wave predictions. For perceived political gain. Now that’s evil.
Ascribing all of the economic losses to lockdowns is probably politically motivated. As we know, many school systems shut down well ahead of state and local lockdowns, usually at the request of parents. Even South Dakota which didnt close down businesses or have a lockdown closed schools closed schools, which causes a large economic drag.
So as I have noted many times, Sweden which had the more focused closure is expecting the same economic consequences we are expecting, plus they had more deaths. One can make up models or just make assumptions, but there remains no evidence that we know how to successfully do a focused mitigation and that it would be effective either economically or in terms of controlling the virus.
So one has to assume that some people are pushing an agenda ” For perceived political gain. Now that’s evil.”
Steve
The enormous degree of shutting most everything down will have an equally enormous post shutdown reaction. It’s estimated that 40% of small black business owners, alone, were projected to not make it. Then there was the BLM sucker punch, which only compounded problems, just when people were attempting to get their opening-up footing. Yes, we have lost far more than was gained by the fear riddled guidelines concocted via those wonderfully intellectual but wrong computer models.
There’s a sentiment often expressed in this country, take care because we can replace XYZ but a life lost can never be replaced. It’s not exactly true, but politically you must at least pay lip service to that.
Combine that with the absolute uncertainty of viral spread and virulence we faced plus the competitive fear based 24/7 news media I don’t think any other policy was palatable.
It’s interesting that the Chinese are totally unlike us in that regard but chose an even more stringent lockdown policy.