Lefties pretending there are no hard tradeoffs the govt has to deal with in deciding how to manage the lockdown

(an example in Hooton's column if people had bothered to read it) https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2020/04/how-the-covid-19-lockdown-has-created-a-perfect-storm-for-domestic-violence.html

There are no easy choices except, arguable the initial lockdown. But even then there was hard choices of when to put it in place.

Later and you risk wider spread
Earlier and you leave people stranded overseas

I only have two comments for @MatthewHootonNZ...

The first is to consider looking at the issue through an insurance lens.

There is no way for people to privately insure against a pandemic. The Govt is the insurer here.

There will be some amount of response that society expects as part of a social insurance contract (that will be part of the blowback the column has received).

That expectation exists because of implicit factors (the Govt being the insurer, as it has in earthquakes and other uninsurables)

and because of explicit commitments like the pandemic plan which existed prior to the pandemic.

Yes, there are other tradeoffs (like increases in domestic violence), but those costs have already been committed to to some degree / for some period of time in this social insurance framework.

The question isn't really when do the costs exceed the benefits based on today's situation, but when do the benefits of social insurance fall below the costs...

And that includes considering what would happen without that insurance.

Eg how different would society and the economy evolved over the past 100 years if we didn't have a prolonged response to a pandemic as our insurance.

There will still come a time to say how long and, despite what some people at the NZ Initiative think, the Government has built in those decision points and options, but it is broader than just do the costs exceed the benefits today. https://twitter.com/Economissive/status/1245935562017533953

It's a question that needs to be weighed up over a period of 100 years.

(Hooton is clear he thinks the Government is doing well, btw)

My second comment is that it is too long.

Could have had more of an edit.

And maybe more illustrative examples. Maybe a little less on business, and a more on people and families, would have helped in the messaging.