Someone pointed out this very interesting debate over lockdowns the other day. One author argues that the lockdowns have caused far more harm than good and will go down as one of the great policy mistakes in history; the other counters that they have in fact saved numerous lives and that things would be far worse without them.
Both writers are sensible and make good points. It's not short, but it is interesting reading. I incline toward the lockdowns-have-been-necessary side of the debate myself, because I am persuaded that coronavirus is indeed considerably more deadly than an ordinary flu. But it is a good argument, and especially worth considering now that we are facing questions about how and how quickly to open things back up again. In general, it nicely illustrates one of the central problems of public policy, how to make decisions under conditions of uncertainty. (The same problem, incidentally, explains why the pandemic is and must be a political issue, not simply one that can be resolved by experts.)
Comments
Post a Comment