Lockdowns are terrible, there's no question about it. And it hurts the most vulnerable the worst. But the problem that some seem to ignore is this: If you open your economic doors before the reinfection rate is under control, the virus can shut them for you. Because people will hunker down and withdraw from economic activity if things get too scary.
That's right. And even though it's obvious, it's worth it to say that that fear reaction is perfectly reasonable.
As just one example but a news-making one, we're seeing this dynamic play out in the closing of cinema chains. I don't want to go to the movies and get coughed on by someone carrying COVID-19. People were obnoxious enough in movie theaters before the pandemic. I've literally no reason to suppose that everybody will keep their masks on once the lights dim. Probably a lot of people are thinking the way I am, and realizing that the reward of a potentially great film doesn't outweigh the risks to myself, my family, my other contacts in my social circle, and people in general should I get infected with the virus. People are staying away from the movies in droves, even though they have the option to go. The distributors know this, so they're pushing their blockbuster releases into next year, despite the films being in their cans or all but. And now, without any other viable option, the theaters are shuttering. Maybe they'll open again down the road, but maybe not.
Yes we can absolutely afford it. Borrowing is cheap right now and the US credit rating is good. If the government doesn't want you to go to work, or you can't work because there is no child care because of a public health emergency, it makes basic sense that the government should pay you something to help you get by. Many in Congress who are more worried about the deficit than pandemic relief and stimulating the economy are the same members who thought the deficit didn't matter when they voted for the 2017 tax cuts.
Fantastic points. I'd just add the following.
Part of the GOP's intention behind the 2017 tax cuts was to increase the pressure to slash spending on social welfare programs on the theory that raising taxes back up later would be politically impractical. Now that this emergency (among other off-topic factors that have crystalized in the interim) indicates the need to expand such programs beyond even previously needed and/or recognized levels, they really are in a quandary of their own making. From a certain point of view, their maneuver is working exactly as intended. What they didn't intend is pretty obviously that fiscal conservatism would work out so badly for so many Americans, beyond the more narrowly defined groups that they were comfortable turning their backs on in the name of grabbing more cash for themselves; they couldn't foresee that this particular kind of emergency might actually occur, especially so soon.
While I admit I was out of line in some general statements I made, I think that it is permissible to mention that the number of people affected by the quarantine runs in the millions. And while the following is from early in the lockdown, it shows that those of us who advocate reopening don't necessarily do it out of disregard for public safety or lives lost.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/health-coronavirus-usa-cost/
Well, this is exactly why more government help is indicated, not less.
One model estimated 2.2. Million deaths.
Here, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute complete dismantles that model, way back in April [
https://www.cato.org/blog/how-one-model-simulated-22-million-us-deaths-covid-19]:
The worst-case Imperial College estimate of 2.2 million deaths if everyone does "nothing" did not simply mean no government lockdowns, as a March 31 White House graph with two curves implied. It meant nobody avoids crowded elevators, or wears face masks, washes their hands more often, or buys gloves or hand sanitizer. Everyone does literally nothing to avoid danger. The Ferguson team knew that was unrealistic, yet their phantasmal 2.2 million estimate depended on it. As they reticently acknowledged, "it is highly likely that there would be significant spontaneous change in population behavior even in the absence of government-mandated interventions."
[...]
In short, the Imperial College projection that 81% of the U.S. population could be infected if everyone just did literally nothing to protect themselves or others is inconsistent with rational risk avoidance, history and recent experience.
[...]
The trouble with being too easily led by models is we can too easily be misled by models. Epidemic models may seem entirely different from economic models or climate models, but they all make terrible forecasts if filled with wrong assumptions and parameters.
&c.; further detail is in the article.
