4 ms·
It's possible that a long, hard shutdown will result in a better economic result. Looking to 1918, though, raises a lot of questions. It's a small amount of d
by downerending 6y ago
It's possible that a long, hard shutdown will result in a better economic result. Looking to 1918, though, raises a lot of questions. It's a small amount of data points from a time when far less reliable information was available.
Perhaps more importantly, it doesn't help us much in determining the total number of excess deaths from these alternatives. I'm guessing that few were even thinking about that question back then.
- lowdose 6y agoIn 1918 the surviving 2/3 of the population inherited a tremendous amount of financial resources of the 100 million people that died. The population is now much larger. Corona is not going to kill more than a million people. Any references to the economic boom in 1918 are a pipe dream.
- edmundsauto 6y agoThe larger point, IMO, is that it's not in evidence to assume that it's a tradeoff between saving lives and the economy. It's possible that prioritizing life saving, even at the expense of a worse economy in the short term, saves lives and spurs a better economic recovery. Edit - for clarity