You must log in or register to comment.

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...


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.


Domestic US Air travel for example dropped more than 70% but this was never officially restricted.

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.


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.


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.


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.