Bottom line:
- "...the evidence suggests lockdowns were an overly blunt and economically costly tool."
- "The evidence also points to alternative strategies that could slow the spread of the epidemic at much less cost." Let the second guessing begin.
Assertions in the story:
- "The economic pain from pandemics mostly comes not from sick people but from healthy people trying not to get sick: consumers and workers who stay home, and businesses that rearrange or suspend production."
- "...many epidemiologists and economists say the economy can’t recover while the virus is out of control."
- There continue to be questions about "what represents an acceptable level of infection, which in turn determines what restrictions to impose."
- "...at the outset, their [experts and policy makers] goals were unclear, a confusion aggravated by the multitude of terms used."
Alternatives proposed: "Rather than lockdowns, using only those measures proven to maximize lives saves while minimizing economic and social disruption."
- "Social distancing policies, for instance, can take into account widely varying risks by age."
- "Research...has shown that 'super-spreader' events contribute disproportionately to infections."
- "Masks may be the most cost-effective intervention of all."
- "...ramped-up testing could enable the economy to reopen safely without a vaccine."
The rest of the article has information about the decision-making regarding shutting things down or staying open.
One possible outcome of sending workers home that comes to mind: Labor may become more mobile, and I would advocate that. Just as digitization let information bypass older distribution systems, e.g., on demand streaming from numerous sources versus scheduled programming of the big 3 networks. More mobile labor could mean greater competition for their services, which means potential for wage increases and better working climates/organization cultures.
