5 ms·

FWIW, an economist published this paper recently estimating "the cost/benefit ratio of lockdowns in Canada, in terms of life-years saved, is between 3.6–282":

FWIW, an economist published this paper recently estimating "the cost/benefit ratio of lockdowns in Canada, in terms of life-years saved, is between 3.6–282": > Generally speaking, the ineffectiveness of lockdown stems from voluntary changes in behavior. Lockdown jurisdictions were not able to prevent noncompliance, and non-lockdown jurisdictions benefited from voluntary changes in behavior that mimicked lockdowns. The limited effectiveness of lockdowns explains why, after one year, the unconditional cumulative deaths per million, and the pattern of daily deaths per million, is not negatively correlated with the stringency of lockdown across countries. Using a cost/benefit method proposed by Professor Bryan Caplan, and using two extreme assumptions of lockdown effectiveness, the cost/benefit ratio of lockdowns in Canada, in terms of life-years saved, is between 3.6–282. That is, it is possible that lockdown will go down as one of the greatest peacetime policy failures in Canada’s history. http://www.sfu.ca/~allen/LockdownReport.pdf http://www.sfu.ca/~allen/LockdownReport.pdf

Retric 5y ago
That’s exactly the kind of paper you get when economists are publishing outside their specialty. Most interesting example was he excluded any data that was counter to his theory and used highly overfit data. “Whether Atkeson (February 2021) has correctly modeled the Covid-19 virus is not at issue.” They can’t exactly do cost benefit analysis without models to compare, but their cherry picking models to support their assumptions and then happy that their assumptions where validated by their models.
- HideousKojima 5y ago
  The point he's making in that section is that by accounting for voluntary changes in human behavior (or failing to account for it as many models did) will drastically affect the results of any model that attempts to predict the rate of spread.
  - Retric 5y ago
    Human behavior is also influenced by messaging. You can’t assume economically rational actors in the real world when modeling actual behavior as people don’t know actual risks etc. In a non lockdown world where schools are open and attendance is mandatory... well it’s clear to the average person the government doesn’t think people need to stay home. Sure, old people are dying in hospitals but I am 40 so it’s nothing to worry about etc. However, shut everything down and people get the message that this is serious irrespective of the actual dangers they personally face.
    - xxxxxxx12 5y ago
      > shut everything down and people get the message that this is serious the Pajama Class say this and then wonder why their "messaging" doesn't go over well with anyone who's not able to log into zoom and chat it up with their comfortable, salaried, urban-elitist compatriots
      - Retric 5y ago
        I am sorry that reality doesn’t line up with your preconceived notions so you feel the need to lash out with name calling etc. Consider sitting, back taking a deep breath, and then stepping away from the computer to do something you enjoy.
        xxxxxxx12 5y ago
        > reality doesn’t line up with your preconceived notions I'm claiming this precise thing, that you're arrogantly presuming that everyone can just hole up in their house like the elite class of people who do nothing but berate the (almost always) lower class people who do not have the privilege to stay home.
        joshuamorton 5y ago
        > that you're arrogantly presuming that everyone Gp didn't claim that. You're putting words in their mouth and lashing out for things they never said. A reasonable interpretation of their claims is that even if not everyone can hole up, government policies that are intense encourage everyone to hole up as much as they can. It's also worth mentioning that many, many working class people did not enjoy the fact that they had to take on risk in order to survive. Pretending everything is fine simply offloads even more risk onto those people.
- xxxxxxx12 5y ago
  > and then happy that their assumptions where validated by their models This was done in the pro-lockdown measures camp all the time, epidemiologists, etc. love using models based on assumptions that are used to show scenarios as evidence of the original assumptions.
jonplackett 5y ago
I thought that the purpose of lockdown (in the UK at least) was to prevent health care from being overwhelmed, at which point deaths would drastically increase. So we don't really know how many people would have died without lockdown to make a comparison, but it would have been a lot higher. If the health service is completely overloaded it means people would start dying from all sorts of other things too. Am I missing the point?
- xxxxxxx12 5y ago
  > I thought that the purpose of lockdown (in the UK at least) was to prevent health care from being overwhelmed Which never really pans out (field hospitals, hospital ship sent to NYC, etc.) - they got strained and perhaps local spots overwhelmed, but never doomsday scenarios we hear bandied about without any evidence. His point is that lockdown doesn't really change behavior and places that don't have strong mandates end up largely practicing safer behavior anyway. I think there's also a strong argument that lockdown ends up decreasing the time spent outdoors, which promotes spread.
  - Clewza313 5y ago
    If you're looking for a doomsday scenario, what's happening in India right now is probably the worst we've seen since the pandemic started. Essentially every hospital in every major city is full and there are patients dying outside.
    - calvano915 5y ago
      Was also looking real bad in Brazil a few weeks ago.
      - greedo 5y ago
        Still is. I expect Brazil to exceed the US death toll in about 100 days.
    - xxxxxxx12 5y ago
tgb 5y ago
They're arguing simultaneously "lockdowns had no impact on people's behavior and therefore had no benefit" and "lockdowns had massive negative costs". Lo and behold that is the exact mistake the paper is making! It's basing the cost analysis off the following question: >Suppose you could either live a year of life in the COVID era, or X months under normal conditions. What’s the value of X that makes the AVERAGE American indifferent? Yet you'll notice this is not about lockdown versus non-lockdown this is "normal" versus COVID. Moreover, the number they use for X is just made-up. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black - this is the exact mistake the author goes on and on about for the other side of the cost/benefit equation. This paper is super sketchy in other ways - it's clearly a personal diatribe, not an attempt to be accurate. Like: > Lockdown is a formal,state-mandated “one size fits all” version of the social norm “keep your distancefrom people who are sick." Is the author unaware of asymptomatic transmission? If all we had to do was keep away from sick people, then this would have been a SARS-1 outcome. > As a result, the ICL model made some dire predictions ... For instance: “In the (unlikely) absence of any control measures or spontaneous changes in individual behaviour ... In total,in an unmitigated epidemic, we would predict approximately 510,000 deaths in GB and 2.2 million in the US...” The US has achieved 1/4 of those deaths with behavioral changes (from lockdowns or not), so 2 million without any behavioral changes seems like a good estimate from early data. Fig 2B is clearly over-fit on past data. I doubt it will hold up well.
- xxxxxxx12 5y ago
  > "lockdowns had no impact on people's behavior and therefore had no benefit" and "lockdowns had massive negative costs" I think you're overlooking the idea that "lockdowns", as we know them, do little other than impose massive costs and anxieties on society, while failing to achieve their main objective i.e. complete immobilization and eradication. So you end up with all the costs of the policy with little upside because the dynamics of spread seem very heterogeneous, mass-spread seems to happen in relatively few people in very particular scenarios (crowded indoor areas - notice that lockdown ends up pushing the entire society, especially the least healthy and most vulnerable, indoors).
  - amanaplanacanal 5y ago

Retric 5y ago

That’s exactly the kind of paper you get when economists are publishing outside their specialty. Most interesting example was he excluded any data that was counter to his theory and used highly overfit data. “Whether Atkeson (February 2021) has correctly modeled the Covid-19 virus is not at issue.” They can’t exactly do cost benefit analysis without models to compare, but their cherry picking models to support their assumptions and then happy that their assumptions where validated by their models.

HideousKojima 5y ago
The point he's making in that section is that by accounting for voluntary changes in human behavior (or failing to account for it as many models did) will drastically affect the results of any model that attempts to predict the rate of spread.
- Retric 5y ago
  Human behavior is also influenced by messaging. You can’t assume economically rational actors in the real world when modeling actual behavior as people don’t know actual risks etc. In a non lockdown world where schools are open and attendance is mandatory... well it’s clear to the average person the government doesn’t think people need to stay home. Sure, old people are dying in hospitals but I am 40 so it’s nothing to worry about etc. However, shut everything down and people get the message that this is serious irrespective of the actual dangers they personally face.
  - xxxxxxx12 5y ago
    > shut everything down and people get the message that this is serious the Pajama Class say this and then wonder why their "messaging" doesn't go over well with anyone who's not able to log into zoom and chat it up with their comfortable, salaried, urban-elitist compatriots
    - Retric 5y ago
      I am sorry that reality doesn’t line up with your preconceived notions so you feel the need to lash out with name calling etc. Consider sitting, back taking a deep breath, and then stepping away from the computer to do something you enjoy.
      - xxxxxxx12 5y ago
        > reality doesn’t line up with your preconceived notions I'm claiming this precise thing, that you're arrogantly presuming that everyone can just hole up in their house like the elite class of people who do nothing but berate the (almost always) lower class people who do not have the privilege to stay home.
        joshuamorton 5y ago
        > that you're arrogantly presuming that everyone Gp didn't claim that. You're putting words in their mouth and lashing out for things they never said. A reasonable interpretation of their claims is that even if not everyone can hole up, government policies that are intense encourage everyone to hole up as much as they can. It's also worth mentioning that many, many working class people did not enjoy the fact that they had to take on risk in order to survive. Pretending everything is fine simply offloads even more risk onto those people.
xxxxxxx12 5y ago
> and then happy that their assumptions where validated by their models This was done in the pro-lockdown measures camp all the time, epidemiologists, etc. love using models based on assumptions that are used to show scenarios as evidence of the original assumptions.

jonplackett 5y ago

I thought that the purpose of lockdown (in the UK at least) was to prevent health care from being overwhelmed, at which point deaths would drastically increase. So we don't really know how many people would have died without lockdown to make a comparison, but it would have been a lot higher. If the health service is completely overloaded it means people would start dying from all sorts of other things too. Am I missing the point?

xxxxxxx12 5y ago
> I thought that the purpose of lockdown (in the UK at least) was to prevent health care from being overwhelmed Which never really pans out (field hospitals, hospital ship sent to NYC, etc.) - they got strained and perhaps local spots overwhelmed, but never doomsday scenarios we hear bandied about without any evidence. His point is that lockdown doesn't really change behavior and places that don't have strong mandates end up largely practicing safer behavior anyway. I think there's also a strong argument that lockdown ends up decreasing the time spent outdoors, which promotes spread.
- Clewza313 5y ago
  If you're looking for a doomsday scenario, what's happening in India right now is probably the worst we've seen since the pandemic started. Essentially every hospital in every major city is full and there are patients dying outside.
  - calvano915 5y ago
    Was also looking real bad in Brazil a few weeks ago.
    - greedo 5y ago
      Still is. I expect Brazil to exceed the US death toll in about 100 days.
  - xxxxxxx12 5y ago

tgb 5y ago

They're arguing simultaneously "lockdowns had no impact on people's behavior and therefore had no benefit" and "lockdowns had massive negative costs". Lo and behold that is the exact mistake the paper is making! It's basing the cost analysis off the following question: >Suppose you could either live a year of life in the COVID era, or X months under normal conditions. What’s the value of X that makes the AVERAGE American indifferent? Yet you'll notice this is not about lockdown versus non-lockdown this is "normal" versus COVID. Moreover, the number they use for X is just made-up. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black - this is the exact mistake the author goes on and on about for the other side of the cost/benefit equation. This paper is super sketchy in other ways - it's clearly a personal diatribe, not an attempt to be accurate. Like: > Lockdown is a formal,state-mandated “one size fits all” version of the social norm “keep your distancefrom people who are sick." Is the author unaware of asymptomatic transmission? If all we had to do was keep away from sick people, then this would have been a SARS-1 outcome. > As a result, the ICL model made some dire predictions ... For instance: “In the (unlikely) absence of any control measures or spontaneous changes in individual behaviour ... In total,in an unmitigated epidemic, we would predict approximately 510,000 deaths in GB and 2.2 million in the US...” The US has achieved 1/4 of those deaths with behavioral changes (from lockdowns or not), so 2 million without any behavioral changes seems like a good estimate from early data. Fig 2B is clearly over-fit on past data. I doubt it will hold up well.

xxxxxxx12 5y ago
> "lockdowns had no impact on people's behavior and therefore had no benefit" and "lockdowns had massive negative costs" I think you're overlooking the idea that "lockdowns", as we know them, do little other than impose massive costs and anxieties on society, while failing to achieve their main objective i.e. complete immobilization and eradication. So you end up with all the costs of the policy with little upside because the dynamics of spread seem very heterogeneous, mass-spread seems to happen in relatively few people in very particular scenarios (crowded indoor areas - notice that lockdown ends up pushing the entire society, especially the least healthy and most vulnerable, indoors).
- amanaplanacanal 5y ago