by Summary:
The worst thing for the economy would be not acting at all to prevent disease spread, followed by too short a lockdown, according to research based on US data.New research from the University of Cambridge suggests that there is no absolute trade-off between the economy and human health – and that the price of inaction could be twice as high as that of a 'structured lockdown.Economic damage could be worse without lockdown and social distancing – study
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
The worst thing for the economy would be not acting at all to prevent disease spread, followed by too short a lockdown, according to research based on US data.New research from the University of Cambridge suggests that there is no absolute trade-off between the economy and human health – and that the price of inaction could be twice as high as that of a 'structured lockdown.Economic damage could be worse without lockdown and social distancing – study
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
NewDealdemocrat writes March JOLTS report: declines in everything, fortunately including layoffs
NewDealdemocrat writes Manufacturing treads water in April, while real construction spending turned down in March (UPDATE: and heavy truck sales weren’t so great either)
Eric Kramer writes Eric Segall tells us what he really thinks about the Roberts court
Angry Bear writes Supreme Court watchers mollified themselves (and others) with vague promises
The worst thing for the economy would be not acting at all to prevent disease spread, followed by too short a lockdown, according to research based on US data.
New research from the University of Cambridge suggests that there is no absolute trade-off between the economy and human health – and that the price of inaction could be twice as high as that of a 'structured lockdown.