[stupac2]

I mean, Mick's right in that we certainly could have done better (and we could certainly still do better), but since literally all available evidence I've ever seen points toward the SiP orders being at best a marginal contribution to the decline it seems best to focus elsewhere (like on government response).

I'm curious if this view that the SiP has been at best only marginally effective is an emerging view.

I think you misunderstand me, it's been marginal economically, because most of the things it did (like closing down restaurants or concerts or whatever) were things people weren't going to be doing anyway, so it only affected the economics on the margin. But it's entirely possible that it was very effective epidemiologically because it stopped the 5-25% of people who would've continued as normal (or those who would've been coerced into going into work in a now-dangerous job) from spreading it. After all, as we've seen elsewhere, 5% of the population getting it is enough to cause a lot of trouble, but it's nowhere near enough to run an actual economy.

And this is why places that have reopened or never shut down in the first place are still seeing economic trouble, the root problem isn't the SiP laws, it's the fear caused by the virus. If everyone suddenly increases their savings rate at the same time you get a recession, there's nothing you can do about it except try to convince them to spend more.

[stupac2]

I mean, Mick's right in that we certainly could have done better (and we could certainly still do better), but since literally all available evidence I've ever seen points toward the SiP orders being at best a marginal contribution to the decline it seems best to focus elsewhere (like on government response).

I'm curious if this view that the SiP has been at best only marginally effective is an emerging view.

I think you misunderstand me, it's been marginal economically, because most of the things it did (like closing down restaurants or concerts or whatever) were things people weren't going to be doing anyway, so it only affected the economics on the margin. But it's entirely possible that it was very effective epidemiologically because it stopped the 5-25% of people who would've continued as normal (or those who would've been coerced into going into work in a now-dangerous job) from spreading it. After all, as we've seen elsewhere, 5% of the population getting it is enough to cause a lot of trouble, but it's nowhere near enough to run an actual economy.

And this is why places that have reopened or never shut down in the first place are still seeing economic trouble, the root problem isn't the SiP laws, it's the fear caused by the virus. If everyone suddenly increases their savings rate at the same time you get a recession, there's nothing you can do about it except try to convince them to spend more.