Bruddah IZ
DA
But was this conclusion about the lack of marginal lockdown harms justified? Economists were no doubt correct that movement and business activity would have changed even without any lockdowns. Vulnerable older people were wise to take some precautionary measures, the elderly in particular. The staggeringly steep age gradient in mortality risk from infection with novel coronavirus was already known by March 2020.
Nevertheless, the argument that people would have voluntarily locked down anyway even in the absence of a formal lockdown is spurious. First, suppose we take the argument that people rationally and voluntarily restricted their behavior in response to the threat of COVID as correct. One implication would be that formal lockdowns are unnecessary since people will voluntarily curtail activities without lockdown. If true, then why have a formal lockdown at all? A formal lockdown imposes the same restrictions on everyone, whether or not they are able to bear the harm. By contrast, public health advice to restrict activities voluntarily for a time would permit those—especially the poor and working-class—to avoid the worst lockdown-related harms. That some (though not all) people did curtail their behavior in response to the disease threat is thus not a sufficient argument to support a formal lockdown.
Nevertheless, the argument that people would have voluntarily locked down anyway even in the absence of a formal lockdown is spurious. First, suppose we take the argument that people rationally and voluntarily restricted their behavior in response to the threat of COVID as correct. One implication would be that formal lockdowns are unnecessary since people will voluntarily curtail activities without lockdown. If true, then why have a formal lockdown at all? A formal lockdown imposes the same restrictions on everyone, whether or not they are able to bear the harm. By contrast, public health advice to restrict activities voluntarily for a time would permit those—especially the poor and working-class—to avoid the worst lockdown-related harms. That some (though not all) people did curtail their behavior in response to the disease threat is thus not a sufficient argument to support a formal lockdown.