The Canadian economist Douglas Allen has written a paper reviewing the literature on the costs and benefits of lockdown. Early studies, he argues, made a number of erroneous assumptions, which led them to overestimate the benefits and underestimate the costs.
Such studies overestimated the benefits of lockdowns insofar as they used overly pessimistic values of key epidemiological parameters; they assumed people would not change their behaviour voluntarily in response to the pandemic; and they assumed the “value of a statistical life” is independent of age. And they underestimated the costs of lockdowns insofar as they only took into account the effects on GDP.
The “value of a statistical life” is a concept used by economists and political scientists to compare the impact of different policies. It is calculated by observing how much individuals are willing to pay to avoid a given level of risk. For example, researchers can examine the relationship between wages and fatality rates across occupations, while holding other factors constant. (Crab fishermen get paid a lot more than fruit pickers, in part because their work is more risky.)
However, the “value of a statistical life” is lower at older ages, particularly above age 65. Since the vast majority of those who die of COVID-19 are older than 65, assuming the “value of a statistical life” is independent of age will lead one to overestimate the benefits of policies that aim to reduce mortality from COVID-19.
Allen then reviews studies that have attempted to disentangle the impacts of lockdowns versus voluntary changes in behaviour. He concludes, “all of them find that mandated lockdowns have only marginal effects and that voluntary changes in behavior explain large parts of the changes in cases, transmissions, and deaths.”
Finally, Allen undertakes his own cost-benefit analysis of Canada’s lockdowns. Following the economist Bryan Caplan, he assumes that the average Canadian valued life under lockdown 5/6ths as much as the alternative, which implies that Canadians lost 6.3 million life years in total. Allen claims that this figure exceeds any plausible estimate of the number of life years saved.
Even if you don’t agree with his assumptions, Allen’s paper is worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I’m torn.
On the one hand, I recognize that quantifying harms is necessary and useful.
On the other hand, the imperfections of economic (necessary) reductionism become more manifest and, at worst, detract from fundamentals.
Agreed. At least this particular quantification showed that no forceful action by the state was justified. But the general principle, regardless of the calculation, is that people do their own risk assessments and that force has no place in the equations.
Worth watching!
https://brandnewtube.com/watch/pandemic-over-we-missed-that-memo-they-waking-up-chessboards-next-move-rockerfeller-lockstep_2n78FyjLfeffQ2t.html
He concludes, “all of them find that mandated lockdowns have only marginal effects and that voluntary changes in behavior explain large parts of the changes in cases, transmissions, and deaths.”
I appreciate this analysis, but disagree with the above statement. I think the changes in “cases, transmissions, and deaths” are largely explained by seasonality (we left the “virus” season) and by the large percentage of the population that has acquired natural immunity by this point.
If 3x or 4x as many people have contracted the virus than “confirmed” cases, this would be 33 to 44 percent of the population who can no longer contract the virus. The real figure is probably higher if one believes, as I do, that the virus was spreading “widely” months before the lockdowns began. So we don’t really know how many people would have qualified as a “confirmed” case if we’d had wide-spread PCR testing in, say, December 2019 and January 2020 … All of these (millions, I believe) people would also have acquired “natural immunity.”
We’ve got used to thinking we can control everything, and politicians fuel this because it keeps them in business and important. The idea that there are some things which it is futile to try and control, given the current state of technology* and knowledge, is difficult for people, and sadly this madness will have further cemented this dangerous and rather childish delusion.
God forbid we should develop such technology any time soon – governments have shown themselves unfit to have access to it.
In short, “fear sells.” It’s the currency that politicians and bureaucrats trade in, what justifies their existence and gives them their prestige, wealth, power, etc. First a “crisis” is created … then these people and organizations get to “save” us all from said crisis. Very few of these events are as existential or apocalyptic as “conventional wisdom” says they are.
And you also have to have a villain, boogeyman or scapegoat, but that’s a topic for another post.
I actually expounded on this point in an article one U.S. site published months ago.
The article’s main point is that all of the “COVID protocols” forced on athletes weren’t really necessary, but I tried to develop a larger point. Excerpt:
“… It’s officials, authorities and bureaucrats who frame the narrative that ends up controlling our lives. Invariably, these officials have acted in response to fear-producing story lines pushed by alleged or dubious experts.
“Here’s how this works. Private citizens or members of different organizations, for various reasons, decide to create associations to govern their members. Once the leaders of these organizations have established their power base, they spring into action to justify their existence. Fear—or any “crisis”—gives them the perfect excuse to exert their control.
“Someone has to protect the people, and, by God, these people will do it. By now, most Americans don’t give a second thought to this process. If the authorities and experts say something must be done, then it must to be done. Just as there’s no crying allowed in baseball, there’s no questioning allowed when it comes to the protocols and mandates …”
https://uncoverdc.com/2020/11/27/sports-imitates-life-the-conditioning-of-americans-to-embrace-mandates/