I have the opposite pov. The anti-lockdown people always seem to argue that without lockdown there would be zero economic consequences. They argue in some fantasy alternate timeline where everyone under 60 just goes about their business as usual. That's not what would happen. People would still avoid going out. Companies would still enforce work from home, etc. Hospitals would likely be full so when you went to get route medical treatment you'd run into a wall and quickly learn to take COVID seriously. It's not clear at all that the results wouldn't have all the same economic consequences on top of way more death
No need to pretend there is some fantasy alternate timeline. There are several states that never had a lockdown[1] and even more that had less strict stay-at-home orders. Compare the COVID-19 numbers (ICU headroom in particular) from this year[2] for states with lockdowns vs. states with no lockdown. Also check out the current unemployment rates for each state.[3] Thee west coast faired no better than the midwest on several metrics.
This is a back-of-the-napkin analysis to be sure, but it certainly suggests the anti-lockdown folks at least have a valid point that should be listened to in good faith.
If you expect society to act responsibly whether or not the government mandates a lockdown, then isn't a government mandated lockdown unnecessary? And if so, isn't unnecessary government regulation strictly worse for the economy?
