Recently I wrote: While the public will uniformly push for more opening, elites and experts push in a dozen different directions. If elites would all back the same story and solution, as they did before, they would probably get it. … So elites and experts don’t speak with a unified voice, while the public does. And that’s why the public will win. While the public tends to defer to elites and experts, and even now still defers a lot, this deference is gradually weakening. We are starting to open, and will continue to open, as long as opening is the main well-supported alternative to the closed status quo. … public pushes will will tend to be correlated in a particular direction, in contrast with the elite pushes which are much more diverse.
I made neither of those claims.
Well I read two pages and found too many mistakes to be worth continuing.
South Korea has had numerous restrictions and a provincial "lockdown" to get on top of its peak, and still has some cbusinesses closed by government decree.
It is obvious from the different levels of peaks in different countries that nowhere has the virous burnt itself out, and that restrictions have succeeded in supressing the outbreak in many places.
All countries used testing at and beyond their capacity - many countries testing capacity was just overwhelmed. The countries that started preparing in January did best. If it got to March and you hadn't done huge preparation basically you were stuffed and no test and trace strategy had a hope. It's ridiculous to think that at the end of March you could just choose "lockdown" or "test and trace" and nearly everyone chose wrong.
The public started shutting down prior to governments in most western countries. There was a media fuelled panic, and governments tagged along. The declaration of shutdowns in fact stopped further public shutting down. Most shutdown declarations required most people to keep working, and gave those employees a feeling of protection and confidence to continue which would not have existed otherwise. Business activity in most states stopped decreasing when the lockdowns were declared - nearly all of it happened prior.
Where I live, people who make food or other essential things are essential workers, and are therefore not subject to lockdown. As far as I am concerned, you are attacking two strawmen: that somebody somewhere wants lockdown to continue forever, and that even essential workers are locked down.
Yes, it makes sense that the pain pushes through that channel too.
An argument from public choice is that some politicians support ending lockdowns because their state and local govt agencies are running out of funding. Muni rates for states with unfunded pension liabilities have increased substantially, so borrowing from the public markets has become harder. No federal bailouts incoming. Virtually every source of tax revenue (property, corporation, incom, sales etc.) is getting crushed simultaneously while social welfare payouts have increased.
The lockdowns have been dubious from the start, for health and economic reasons.
Oddly, the lockdown idea started in China, and then became standard operating procedure (SOP) globally. Admittedly, China seemed yo have success with its Wuhan lockdown.
Governments, for reasons mostly good but sometimes not, often look for SOPs to mimic.
If C19 had started in Dayton, Ohio, would have lockdowns followed? I suspect not, but there would have been abundant warnings to nursing homes---maybe blame-gaming nursing homes----and advice to the elderly to sequester. No lockdowns.
Just a thought.
Thanks; I tweeted a quote from it.
FYI, the best socio-political analysis of COVID lockdowns I have read is Carlo Caduff's (King's College, London): https://www.academia.edu/42...
And you believe they would stop working if government handed them money? Most small businesspeople work because it's something they want to do - the money they make is not their motivation.
Small business work. They are workers.
"even if we kept printing plenty of money to hand out to workers to all stay home, eventually there wouldn’t be anything to buy, because no one was making and distributing products and services."
I believe this is a misunderstanding of the real world. In every community there is a small business community. If the bulk of the community has the money to pay for their needs, regardless of where that money comes from (so long as it is believed that it will continue), that small business community will find a way to supply those needs. True entrepreneurship still thrives among us. (It just doesn't get the attention of the VC faked.) For evidence, just look at how quickly your local restaurants switched from sit-down to carry-out since the pandemic lockdown.
I didn't claim we were doing this. I said "even if".
Yes, they also don't have much savings, relative to their burn rate, and so need to restart soon.
Many of the people that I see pushing for opening are owners of very small (1-10 employees) businesses.
"Look, even if we kept printing plenty of money to hand out to workers to all stay home [...]."Could you elaborate this point, Dr Habson? How much money has been 'handed out' to workers in the United States due to the pandemic? I was under the impression that workers in the US are being laid off in huge numbers since there are no solidarity-based economic policies like Germany's Kurzarbeit in your country.
I have heard many socialists use this definition of "forced". Their logic is that anyone who is not independently wealthy is "forced" to work by their employer because they will starve otherwise. Then, they compare that to forcibly denying someone food, say by locking them in their homes and preventing any food from reaching their house. They never acknowledge that not hiring someone doesn't prevent that person from pursuing other means of gaining food, say working for a different employer, growing their own food, etc.
Of course, we hear the same logic on health care: not buying health care for someone is defined as "denying access" to health care. Ironically, many of these same people favor outlawing certain health care and health insurance contract terms that willing providers and consumers would otherwise agree to, which really is "denying access", just like blocking a willing food seller from delivering food to a willing food buyer.
"Sigh" is indeed the word that comes to mind.