Some commentators maintain that lockdowns have little or no impact on the economy. They argue it is fear of the virus, rather than government restrictions per se, that causes people to stay at home and stop spending money.
Such commentators tend to rely on studies from the first half of 2020. Because there was a dramatic decline in mobility at the start of the pandemic – when people everywhere stayed at home out of fear – these studies typically find that lockdowns had a small effect on the economy.
However, once the characteristics of the virus became better understood (e.g. that the death rate for those younger than 40 is extremely low), people in jurisdictions not under lockdown began venturing out again. As a result, the damaging effects of lockdown on the economy are only apparent when you examine several months of data.
In a study published in the Journal of Global Health, Chilean researchers examined the economic impact of localised lockdowns in Chile. They exploited variation in the timing and duration of lockdowns across 170 municipalities, comprising 89% of the country’s population.
As a measure of economic activity, the authors used the year-on-year change in monthly VAT receipts, which previous research has shown is strongly related to GDP.
They began by plotting monthly VAT receipts in municipalities that were and were not under lockdown in May of 2020 (see chart below). The blue line corresponds to those that were, and the red line to those that were not.
The two series follow similar paths between 2014 and 2019. However, in 2020, the blue line falls substantially further than the red, indicating that lockdowns reduced economic activity over and above the effect of voluntary behavioural change.
To gauge the impact of lockdowns more precisely, the authors ran a statistical model of year-on-year change in monthly VAT receipts, with days under lockdown as a predictor. The model controlled for a variety of factors, including both case and death numbers.
They found that one month of lockdown reduced VAT receipts by 12.5%. Since municipalities without a lockdown saw VAT receipts fall by 15%, this means that lockdowns explain almost half the decline in economic activity.
“Our estimates”, the authors note, “suggest that a three-to-four-month lockdown would reduce economic activity by approximately the same amount” as one year of the 2009 Great Recession. So much for the claim that lockdowns don’t harm the economy.
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.
She’s not wrong, just being dishonest about her true motives. Do you think she would be making the same arguments if left-wing speech and speakers were being cancelled from academia?
Ts ts … how nasty of you to claim her opinions were political. They’re obviously not! It’s about protecting Jewish students from spiritual genocide so that some remain for friends of Hamas to slaughter. Just what the greater good of mankind objectively dictates.
I am apparently very nasty – just as well there are so many nice people to counterbalance my malign influence
One of the many things not in the King’s Speech. There is more to come. Fancy calling legislation defending free speech as ‘burdensome’!
In the end, then, all roads it seems will lead us, rather than to what was meant to be a newly beefed-up Office for Students, to court.
This obviously implies no redress for students which is presumably the main motivation of Phillipson. Forced political indoctrination would become really burdensome if it was ok to be ok with being white.
Special interests vs. Special interests.
Wouldn’t it be good if free speech protection was consistent for everyone or better still, we recognise we may hear things we don’t like and may disagree with the opinions of others. Are campuses a bastion of truth, reason and sensibility that should get special treatment?
I suspect a significant driver in this is the amount of income that comes from overseas students, especially China, which is not a beacon of freedom and tolerance to criticism.
Visiting academics or speakers who might be prone to talking about Uighur slaves and environmental destruction, both of which have been well documented, are problematic.