{"id":3580,"date":"2020-10-07T18:52:02","date_gmt":"2020-10-07T18:52:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lonecandle.com\/?p=3580"},"modified":"2020-10-07T18:52:02","modified_gmt":"2020-10-07T18:52:02","slug":"experts-think-the-economy-would-be-stronger-if-covid-19-lockdowns-had-been-more-aggressive","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/?p=3580","title":{"rendered":"Experts Think The Economy Would Be Stronger If COVID-19 Lockdowns Had Been More Aggressive"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

“our\u00a0economic survey<\/a>, conducted in partnership with the\u00a0Initiative on Global Markets<\/a>\u00a0at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, FiveThirtyEight polled 32 quantitative macroeconomists about the present and future of the economy. And because we couldn\u2019t resist some Monday-morning quarterbacking, we also asked whether the lockdowns earlier in the year were too aggressive or not aggressive enough.<\/p>\n\n\n\n


Out of those surveyed, 74 percent of economists said the U.S. would be in a better economic position now if lockdowns had been more aggressive at the beginning of the crisis. Among that camp, the most commonly cited reason was that early control over the virus would have allowed a smoother and more comprehensive return to economic activity later on.”\u00a0
…
“Proponents of tighter lockdowns pointed to Japan and various European countries (such as Germany, Norway and Denmark) as examples of how reducing the virus to extremely low levels early on allowed for a quicker recovery. Others noted that children could have returned to school for in-person learning faster with earlier control over the virus \u2014 a\u00a0major consideration<\/a>\u00a0in maximizing the country\u2019s economic power as it bounces back from the pandemic.
Among the 26 percent who thought lockdowns should have been\u00a0less<\/em>\u00a0aggressive, the main theme was that more good could have been done with a targeted approach that protected at-risk populations and stopped potential superspreading events, while allowing more activity overall. Others thought the lockdowns didn\u2019t even matter much, or that most of the reduced activity was due to individual self-regulation rather than government intervention.”\u00a0
…
“In the same vein \u2014 but this time, looking\u00a0forward<\/em>\u00a0\u2014 we asked the economists to imagine a new shutdown had to occur as the result of a spike in COVID-19 cases. Which activities would they shut down first if they also wanted to minimize economic damage? With the caveat that our panel consists of economic experts \u2014 not epidemiologists \u2014 they clearly prioritized indoor dining (and to a lesser extent, gyms) to be the first shut down, while outdoor dining and recreation were at the bottom of the list”\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
Experts Think The Economy Would Be Stronger If COVID-19 Lockdowns Had Been More Aggressive<\/a><\/blockquote>