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:
New Economics Foundation writes Is the Labour government delivering on its promises?
John Quiggin writes Dispensing with the US-centric financial system
New Economics Foundation writes Whose growth is it anyway?
Matias Vernengo writes What is heterodox economics?
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.