[Genuine Realist]

But the one point of interest in terms of covid is that Biden blamed him for both the covid deaths AND the damage to the economy. Obviously, that’s logically inconsistent. The bottom line is that it’s way too early to write history on covid - and the problem is exacerbated by the hysteria of Presidential politics. Essentially, the obsession with Trump and the American ‘failure’  is the gateway to magical thinking.

That's not logically inconsistent.  There is a lot of evidence to show that there is not necessarily a trade-off between containing the virus and the hit to the economy, dating back to the 1918 influenza pandemic.  The bottom line is that the economy is more dependent on individual actions that government restrictions, and if the government fails to get the virus under control, people are not going to go out and spend money, regardless of whether the government lets them.  On the other hand, countries that manage to get the virus under control are able to open up more quickly, and when they do open up, the population is willing to resume normal activities.

Consider, for example, Sweden, which is often held up as an example for not shutting their economy down in response to the virus.  Sweden has had a fatality rate of 58.3 per 100,000, which is substantially higher than its Nordic neighbors (Denmark 11.2/100,000, Finland 6.2/100,000, Norway 5.0/100,000).  Now, your point would be made if Sweden's GDP had been minimally impacted, but alas GDP in Sweden fell by 8.3% in the second quarter.  That was worse than Denmark (-7.4%), Norway (-5.1%) or Finland (-4.5%).  In other words, not only did Sweden wind up with a much worse impact of COVID-19 than its neighbors, its economy was hurt more than its neighbors.  This suggests that not only is there not a tradeoff between controlling the pandemic and economic growth, but actually there is a direct correlation between how well you control the pandemic and growth.

BC

My larger point is that it is simply too early to write history, and your own post is somewhat corroborative of that. i don't think it's possible to determine economic damage in a 90 or 180 day period. The determination is how much is done to the infrastructure that is irreversible, and no one knows that. Also, how much of the lockdown simply postpones a societal adjustment that is inevitable, and includes an acceptance of mortality rates that are higher than before the onset of the plague, but endurable? We are only six months into this blasted thing. 

How is this going to look to historians 50 years in the future? Or 500? History hasn't ended, as much as the millennials think so. Will they applaud the Swedens that simply took the blow, and went on  - because blows ARE coming, no matter what you do. Will they applaud the nations that locked down as the virus returned? Or see the lockdown as overkill, that led to major economic and political repercussions? Will they accept the death rate and infection rate as presently stated? Or find that they were over- or understated for short term political reasons?

I don't know the answers to any of these questions. I suspect that the winners are going to be those nations and societies that continued to experiment with various forms of social distancing, while resisting the impulse to drastic shutdowns. I THINK that's the US and most of the West. But I don't know.

[Genuine Realist]

But the one point of interest in terms of covid is that Biden blamed him for both the covid deaths AND the damage to the economy. Obviously, that’s logically inconsistent. The bottom line is that it’s way too early to write history on covid - and the problem is exacerbated by the hysteria of Presidential politics. Essentially, the obsession with Trump and the American ‘failure’  is the gateway to magical thinking.

That's not logically inconsistent.  There is a lot of evidence to show that there is not necessarily a trade-off between containing the virus and the hit to the economy, dating back to the 1918 influenza pandemic.  The bottom line is that the economy is more dependent on individual actions that government restrictions, and if the government fails to get the virus under control, people are not going to go out and spend money, regardless of whether the government lets them.  On the other hand, countries that manage to get the virus under control are able to open up more quickly, and when they do open up, the population is willing to resume normal activities.

Consider, for example, Sweden, which is often held up as an example for not shutting their economy down in response to the virus.  Sweden has had a fatality rate of 58.3 per 100,000, which is substantially higher than its Nordic neighbors (Denmark 11.2/100,000, Finland 6.2/100,000, Norway 5.0/100,000).  Now, your point would be made if Sweden's GDP had been minimally impacted, but alas GDP in Sweden fell by 8.3% in the second quarter.  That was worse than Denmark (-7.4%), Norway (-5.1%) or Finland (-4.5%).  In other words, not only did Sweden wind up with a much worse impact of COVID-19 than its neighbors, its economy was hurt more than its neighbors.  This suggests that not only is there not a tradeoff between controlling the pandemic and economic growth, but actually there is a direct correlation between how well you control the pandemic and growth.

BC

My larger point is that it is simply too early to write history, and your own post is somewhat corroborative of that. i don't think it's possible to determine economic damage in a 90 or 180 day period. The determination is how much is done to the infrastructure that is irreversible, and no one knows that. Also, how much of the lockdown simply postpones a societal adjustment that is inevitable, and includes an acceptance of mortality rates that are higher than before the onset of the plague, but endurable? We are only six months into this blasted thing. 

How is this going to look to historians 50 years in the future? Or 500? History hasn't ended, as much as the millennials think so. Will they applaud the Swedens that simply took the blow, and went on  - because blows ARE coming, no matter what you do. Will they applaud the nations that locked down as the virus returned? Or see the lockdown as overkill, that led to major economic and political repercussions? Will they accept the death rate and infection rate as presently stated? Or find that they were over- or understated for short term political reasons?

I don't know the answers to any of these questions. I suspect that the winners are going to be those nations and societies that continued to experiment with various forms of social distancing, while resisting the impulse to drastic shutdowns. I THINK that's the US and most of the West. But I don't know.