Read on Twitter
One of the weirdest things about the cost-benefit debate on restrictions, beside the fact that it's almost non-existent, is that almost everyone talks as if restrictions didn't have an immediate effect on people's welfare in addition to whatever economic consequences they have.
For instance, this paper is one of the only cost-benefit analyses of lockdown policies (think about how weird that is!), and finds that the benefits of a 2-4 weeks long lockdown in the US would vastly outweigh its cost. https://www.aei.org/research-products/working-paper/could-the-united-states-benefit-from-a-lockdown-a-cost-benefit-analysis/
Forget about the fact that, in order to estimate the benefits of such a lockdown, the author uses Flaxman et al.'s estimates and those of similarly worthless papers, which are ridiculously large and that no one should take seriously. https://necpluribusimpar.net/lockdowns-science-and-voodoo-magic/
The point I want to emphasize here is that, when calculating the costs of such a lockdown, she doesn't even consider the immediate impact locking up 320 million people in their home for 2-4 weeks would have!
But this has to be huge. In France, we can't leave our home after 6pm, this affects people's well-being regardless of the economic consequences! Think about how many days people would be willing to sacrifice in exchange for not being locked down for as long as that...
What's even weirder is how little debate there is about the cost-benefit profile of lockdowns and other stringent restrictions. It's absolutely *insane* that dozens of countries have abolished fundamental liberties for *months* without ever publishing a cost-benefit analysis.
Everyone should agree that it's insane. As I was saying earlier today, the question you should ask is not whether lockdowns and other legal restrictions are effective, but whether they're effective enough to pass a cost-benefit test. Almost nobody is asking this question.
It should *really* worry you how easily the media, "experts" and to a large extent the population went along with this, despite the fact that there was never any proper cost-benefit debate. This crisis has made clear how seriously fucked public discourse is.
This is true even if you think that in fact lockdowns and other stringent restrictions are justified! That's not the issue here. Even if that's what you think, you can't deny the cost-benefit debate never happened. Again no government published a serious CBA as far as I know.
I mean just think about it: dozens of democratic governments have abolished or drastically reduced many fundamental liberties for months and not a single one of them even published a cost-benefit analysis to justify this policy. This is objectively *insane*, you should be mad!
People are clearly afraid to even raise the issue. I know many people, academics, journalists, etc., who will express skepticism or even opposition to those policies in private, but almost no one "respectable" will voice those concerns except very mildly in public.
This is a common reaction but I disagree with it. Yes, cost-benefit analyses are hard, but it doesn't mean that the exercice is not useful or important, if only because it forces you to think about what assumptions you're implicitly making. https://twitter.com/StephenPiment/status/1355294425690243074
By engaging in that exercice, you may realize that you currently support a policy that would not be justified given your beliefs about costs/benefits, even if they are very uncertain. In any case not even trying is the best way to make decisions that you will regret.
You don't even need to be a utilitarian to agree with that. I'm not a utilitarian! But everyone can benefit from engaging in that exercice, even if they're not a utilitarian. Again it forces you to take a hard look at what you're doing. This alone makes it worth it.
