Read on Twitter
There's been lots of outraged response to the 'let the pensioners die' crowd on moral grounds, but much less on why their cost-benefit analyses are so flawed on their own terms. But anyone who has followed their climate work will be very familiar with where they've gone wrong.
First up the moral argument is clear, 'no man is an island' and all that. But as Toby Young points out in his notorious piece, policymakers put a price on lives all the time. https://thecritic.co.uk/has-the-government-over-reacted-to-the-coronavirus-crisis/
It may make us uncomfortable, but utilitarianism is well established and for good reasons. As Young notes rationing care may be controversial, but in a system with finite capacity and budgets it will and does happen.
Why then, as someone challenged me on here yesterday, shouldn't we carry out a cost-benefit analysis? The answer is we absolutely should be carrying out a cost-benefit analysis, but it has to be a damned good one.
The problem with the back of a fag packet calculations done by Young et al is that, just as with attempts to dismiss climate action on economic grounds, they ignore the range of different scenarios, the precautionary principle, and the endogeneity of the crisis.
The truth is we don't know how many deaths coronavirus will cause with any real confidence. As @TomChivers points out in a brilliant explanation of how predictive models work tiny changes in input assumptions leads to huge changes in outcomes. https://unherd.com/2020/04/how-likely-are-you-to-die-of-coronavirus/
Your cost-benefit of lifting all social distancing post Easter looks a lot different if it causes 10,000 extra deaths, 100,000 extra deaths, or 500,000+ extra deaths.
We also don't know for certain about the long tail risks. Could the virus mutate and become even more dangerous? Will it prove resistant to any eventual vaccine?
It is precisely the same problem with climate risks and sensitivities. Less than 2C of warming this century has very different costs than more than 3-4C. Plus there are the known unknowns of tipping points to consider.
Faced with a range of possible scenarios - and with coronavirus the range and the known unknowns are very considerable indeed - standard practice is apply the precautionary principle because the costs of the worst case scenario are simply too high.
You will notice that nowhere do the professional optimists engage with this very simple principle.
But what of the benefits of lifting restrictions early? Again their analysis is flawed on its own terms.
But what of the benefits of lifting restrictions early? Again their analysis is flawed on its own terms.
The assumption is that if we got back to normal, took the hit on excess deaths, the economy would motor again. This is simply and demonstrably nonsensical.
The pandemic, again like climate change, is endogenous to the economy. There is no return to normality while thousands are off sick or dying, people are scared to congregate, and our largest trading partners are in lockdown. You want a recovery, you need to tackle the virus.
It's the same game with arguments against climate action. They argue 'decarbonisation costs x, we should spend that on something else', while ignoring that without decarbonisation the economy faces serious and escalating risks.
So, let's have a cost-benefit analysis, but let's have one that acknowledges how little certainty we have, how big the risks are, and how hard it would be to realise the benefits of a more lax approach.
My hunch would be - and it is the hunch of virtually all mainstream economists, governments, and doctors - that as with climate change the best way to minimise overall costs and maximise benefits is with bold and ambitious full spectrum action.
Just to round off this thread. @s8mb has done the maths on why a shutdown makes sense. A fantastic read on what a more credible cost-benefit analysis would look like. https://thecritic.co.uk/why-the-coronavirus-shutdown-is-worth-it/
