9 ms·

Evidence? (My own suspicion is that the lockdowns are better for the economy in the long run, but I’m definitely not an expert.)

rs999gti 6y ago
Better? Explain
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >Better? Explain Not GP, but it seems to me that given the large consumer spending portion of GDP (~70% in the US) in developed countries, anything that will limit folks going out and spending money, like: 1. Retail sales; 2. Air/rail/bus travel; 3. Going to bars/restaurants; 4. Hospitality (hotels/cruises); 5. Theater/concerts; 6. Public transportation. Is likely to have significant negative effect on the economy as a whole until the majority of the population is convinced that they won't become sick and/or put their vulnerable loved ones at risk. As such, it seems to me that we won't be able to resuscitate the economy fully until we have some semblance of herd immunity. Whether that herd immunity comes from a vaccine or millions of deaths and tens of millions of long-term effects, or from a broadly deployed vaccine will also have significant economic impact. tl;dr: if many/most won't go to the mall, the pub or Mallorca, the economy will continue to flounder. We won't get past that until people feel safe around others.
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    Apparently some folks disagree with my assessment/reasoning. It would be nice to know what, exactly, I seem to be missing. Both for my own edification as well as enhancing the discussion around this.
logicchains 6y ago
Just compare the GDP hit taken by Japan and Korea, which had essentially no lockdowns, with that taken by the European countries that locked down. Places with extensive lockdowns had GDP fall by 5-10 percentage points more. Or compare US states with more lockdowns vs those with less or no lockdown: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/red-states-are-outperforming-blue-states-economically https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/red-states-are-outpe....
anoncake 6y ago
Because a temporarily modestly increased death rate wouldn't cause the damage we are currently doing to ourselves.

rs999gti 6y ago

Better? Explain

nobody9999 6y ago
>Better? Explain Not GP, but it seems to me that given the large consumer spending portion of GDP (~70% in the US) in developed countries, anything that will limit folks going out and spending money, like: 1. Retail sales; 2. Air/rail/bus travel; 3. Going to bars/restaurants; 4. Hospitality (hotels/cruises); 5. Theater/concerts; 6. Public transportation. Is likely to have significant negative effect on the economy as a whole until the majority of the population is convinced that they won't become sick and/or put their vulnerable loved ones at risk. As such, it seems to me that we won't be able to resuscitate the economy fully until we have some semblance of herd immunity. Whether that herd immunity comes from a vaccine or millions of deaths and tens of millions of long-term effects, or from a broadly deployed vaccine will also have significant economic impact. tl;dr: if many/most won't go to the mall, the pub or Mallorca, the economy will continue to flounder. We won't get past that until people feel safe around others.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  Apparently some folks disagree with my assessment/reasoning. It would be nice to know what, exactly, I seem to be missing. Both for my own edification as well as enhancing the discussion around this.

logicchains 6y ago

Just compare the GDP hit taken by Japan and Korea, which had essentially no lockdowns, with that taken by the European countries that locked down. Places with extensive lockdowns had GDP fall by 5-10 percentage points more. Or compare US states with more lockdowns vs those with less or no lockdown: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/red-states-are-outperforming-blue-states-economically https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/red-states-are-outpe....

anoncake 6y ago

Because a temporarily modestly increased death rate wouldn't cause the damage we are currently doing to ourselves.