Why most economists continue to back lockdowns [in Australia]

[DBoon]

As with pandemic policy in general, much of the discussion of the Sydney outbreak has framed the problem as one pitting health against the economy. In this framing, epidemiologists and public health experts are seen as the advocates of saving lives, while economists are seen as the advocates of saving money.

In reality, the great majority of Australian economists support policies of aggressive suppression or elimination—that is, keeping case numbers close to zero, and clamping down when an outbreak threatens. ...
Why have economists endorsed the policy of suppression with more enthusiasm than, for example, political and business leaders?

First, because economists understand the concept of exponential growth.
...
Second, economists understand counterfactuals—that is, the need to specify what would have happened under an alternative policy.
...
Third, and most importantly, economists understand about trade-offs.
...
The evidence points strongly to one conclusion. Allowing the virus to spread uncontrolled would have done more economic damage than temporary lockdowns, as well as causing thousands of avoidable deaths and tens of thousands to suffer severe, and possibly long-lasting, illness.

https://phys.org/news/2021-07-economists-lockdowns.html

[SoCalDavidS]

1. We Don't Need No Stinkin' Lockdowns

Clearly America did the right thing by sacrificing the lives of 620,000 and counting, for the sake of keeping the economy open.