Comments
jeeb00 t1_iyp9ohj wrote
Don’t worry, I’m sure recent events will all be reviewed in a study on pandemics and the economy in 2122.
NotAnotherEmpire t1_iyqobzj wrote
With modern information flow it seems that the greatest impacts, short of hard lockdown, are people reacting to the disease. Big hits to activity in 2020 tended to both be independent of most policy and preceded the orders.
E.g.
https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-021-10676-1
Domestic US Air travel for example dropped more than 70% but this was never officially restricted.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590198220301883
Meanwhile, social distancing advisories and stuff like 50% capacity - especially without requiring effective masks - are also probably too confusing and definitely too weak to stop something like COVID.
DippStarr t1_iyp5yj5 wrote
"short-run economic disruptions" is an academic euphemism for small business owners losing their life's work/business. In the modern COVID era, mega-corporations filled the void and crushed the small business opportunity to rebound.
PPP was a farce that most small businesses couldn't access because congressional cronies already had paperwork in hand to gobble up the limited funds.
SpecificFail t1_iyp96f0 wrote
Sadly true. Mitigation would have worked, but those in power used it as a way to award political favors, line their own pockets, and cause social disruption for their own gain. There's a reason why certain groups were so heavily invested in spreading misinformation, it was making them rich while drawing it out as long as possible.
[deleted] t1_iyph5dn wrote
[deleted]
GhostalMedia t1_iyowons wrote
I assume this paper finally got through peer review and is being properly published. The preliminary paper was floating around 2.5 years ago.
I’m curious to see something similar for COVID. So far it looks like the states that had looser restrictions have hit their pre pandemic employment rates sooner than states with stricter mandates. For example, Texas and Florida’s employment numbers rebounded faster than California. And places like NY still aren’t back to their pre-pandemic numbers.
Skyblacker t1_iyoxisf wrote
And since there was no barrier between states that implemented restrictions and those that did not, covid casualties practically flattened out across the US. So in that context, the economic effect could have been larger than the health effect.
Cheshire90 t1_iypwse0 wrote
Unique historical events can't be treated as if they prove a generalization case. The shift from info on NPIs in the 1918 Flu pandemic to pronouncements about NPIs in general is a shocking level of disordered thinking. The motivated reasoning here seems entirely driven by, as they say it, "discussions in contemporary newspapers"
nomad1128 t1_iypx7t2 wrote
1918 flu took out working age group people; COVID took out predominantly retired class
its2022and t1_iyphl9p wrote
in the case of the 1918 Flu
Not that it is impossible that any public health interventions could potentially effect on the ecomeny, and also save lives. It can be both.
Senior-Action7039 t1_iypo2d4 wrote
NPI's, non pharmaceutical interventions? That's all they had in 1918 for crying out loud. The only pharmaceutical items were leeches and laxatives. Secondly, shutting down restaurants and bars, gyms, hair salons, and other business couldn't possibly have any effect on the economy. I hope our tax dollars didn't pay for this ridiculous study. I swear the people who publish this tripe really think we are all stupid.
Startrail_wanderer t1_iyruj8n wrote
To those who want to read the entire paper you can access the pre print of it here
GetOutOfNATO t1_iysud0d wrote
Title is false; lockdowns did almost nothing to slow the spread of the virus but they did harm the economy.
Onlyf0rm3m3s t1_iyy2m3w wrote
What were those public health interventions and how are those compared to covid interventions? I would argue that massive lockdowns affect the economy, being China the biggest example.
AutoModerator t1_iyon943 wrote
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
[deleted] t1_iyowl9l wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iyozgj4 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iyp6qrr wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iypp1p5 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iyq6m22 wrote
[removed]
CALdreamin86 t1_iyoo879 wrote
Who sponsored this study?
Neurotic_Bakeder t1_iyp08xq wrote
The economic history association? It's right there in the link
CALdreamin86 t1_iypgcwa wrote
Keep drilling down. Anyone can buy a study these days.
Neurotic_Bakeder t1_iypunkw wrote
Evidence, babe. Speculation is cheap.
CALdreamin86 t1_iyq3ydf wrote
Google is your friend my guy. There was a whole scandal about it involving Chinese scientists.
BallsMahoganey t1_iyosgey wrote
That's awesome. It's a shame we don't have a more recent pandemic to study the economic effects of public health interventions...