|
Study Of 1918 Flu: Cities That Imposed Social Distancing Performed No Worse Economically Than Those That Didn't ‐ And Did Better Afterward
Hot Air via InstapunditSomething new and timely from three economists who work for the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and MIT, respectively. It’s possible that 1918 and 2020 are too apples-and-oranges for a study of the former to usefully guide the reality of the latter. 1918 was a wartime economy. Certain regional economic effects may have overlapped with the flu pandemic to create an illusion of causation when there was merely correlation. And if the Oxford model’s theory of coronavirus is correct, this bug is waaaaaaaaay less deadly than the Spanish flu was, which will heavily influence how draconian our countermeasures end up being. The authors have considered those first two objections, though, along with several others and feel confident that social distancing isn’t an economy-killer. The disease is what kills the economy. If anything, "non-pharmaceutical interventions" (NPIs) like self-quarantine, reduced public gatherings, etc, helped cities recover more quickly economically by limiting the local human toll from the epidemic. It’s not an either/or choice between controlling the contagion and reviving the economy expeditiously. Do the first and the second will follow. Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2020-03-27 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=567098 |