| Submit your comments on this article |
| Economy |
| Why Didn't the 1958 and 1918 Pandemics Destroy the Economy? Hint: It's the Lockdowns |
| 2020-05-26 |
| [Mises] Media pundits and politicians are now in the habit of claiming it was the pandemic itself that has caused unemployment to skyrocket and economic growth to plummet. The claim is that sick and dying workers, fearful consumers, and disrupted supply chains would cause economic chaos. Some have even claimed that economic shutdowns actually help the economy, because it is claimed allowing the spread of the disease will itself destroy employment and economic growth.1 Leaving aside the fact there's no evidence lockdowns actually work, we can nonetheless look to past pandemics—where coercive government interventions were at most sporadic—we should see immense economic damage. Specifically, we can look to the the pandemic of 1957-58, which was more deadly than the COVID-19 pandemic has been so far. We can also look to the 1918-19 pandemic. Yet, we will see that neither produced economic damage on a scale we now see as a result of the government mandated lockdowns. This thoroughly undermines the claims that the lockdowns are only a minor factor in economic destruction, and that the virus itself is the real culprit. Economic Reactions in 1957—58, and in 1918—19 |
| Posted by:Clem |
| #13 People say "meat packing plant." Have you looked at the mechanics of the work place? The lifestyles of the employees outside work. Yes. No. PhD epidemiologists have it all figured out. At a distance. With a mask. And a scarf. |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2020-05-26 10:20 |
| #12 In Nebraska 1/6 of the cases were in packing plants. Moreover, Montana has meat packing plants too. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru PB 2020-05-26 10:08 |
| #11 Nebraska has meat-packing plants with workers who speak 40 different languages and must work to feed their families, as well as the essential service of feeding America? |
| Posted by: Bobby 2020-05-26 09:33 |
| #10 He seems to need deprogramming. |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2020-05-26 07:36 |
| #9 Yeah, and I'm fed up with the commenter who says Chinavirus is "The Only Thingâ„¢" Get over it. |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2020-05-26 07:34 |
| #8 Treating people with cancer, diabetes, heart failure or COPD is so boring. Not hero work. |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2020-05-26 07:30 |
| #7 It's my bet that more have been killed by the redirection of virtually all treatment into "exciting" fighting covid rather than treating the actually sick. Most of the excess mortality will come from people who died waiting for treatment that would normally be available! In the UK the ONS estimated 55,000 excess deaths but 35,000 died with suspected covid (i.e. that's the absolute maximum that actually died from it).Therefore at least 20,000 out of the 55,000 died from the health service just not being there. Sarcastic clap for the NHS... |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2020-05-26 05:20 |
| #6 What about the Ainu People of Montana and Nebraska? Asking for a friend. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2020-05-26 04:20 |
| #5 /\ There were ZERO cases of CV-19 reported among the Sentinelese people of Montana and Nebraska. Not certain if that fact is relevant, but it is a fact. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2020-05-26 01:26 |
| #4 ^Hint, it's not R vs. D: compare Texas & Florida. And it's not population density. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2020-05-26 01:23 |
| #3 ^Let us, for a change ignore Sweden vs. its neighbors and look at Montana vs. Nebraska: 15 deaths per million vs. 77. I wonder what the difference is? |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2020-05-26 01:21 |
| #2 Leaving aside the fact there's no evidence lockdowns actually work Except if one is willing to look at the evidence. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2020-05-26 00:27 |
| #1 Maybe there were fewer irrelevant workers. |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2020-05-26 00:16 |