An interesting article on today's WSJ cites 4 different studies using the latest data on covid, ALL of which have concluded the costs of lockdowns FAR exceed the risks.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-da...r-reopening-11592264199?mod=opinion_lead_pos5
Since that site is likely behind a paywall, I will summarize its major findings. A study out of Cal-Berkeley has calculated that the lockdowns saved 74,000 lives, which translates to a cost benefit of around $250 billion. That implies the value of a life is around $3.5 million each, which is a figure used by military in valuing lives of combatants for things like deciding whether to spend $4 million per fighter jet on safety equipment or not. (One can argue that the value of an 80 year old's life to society as a whole is...a bit less.) Given the packages the Federal government has spent already, the costs to our society have far out-weighed the benefits.
An even more recent study from economists affiliated with Germany’s IZA Institute of Labor Economics suggests that the Berkeley estimate of 74,000 lives saved over the past four months is best understood as an upper bound. The reason is that shelter-at-home policies don’t so much reduce Covid-19 deaths as delay them. Delaying deaths will reduce them if a vaccine or cure is found in time. But we can’t be sure that an effective vaccine will be produced and available any time soon.
That conclusion is actually quite similar to an earlier conclusion out of the UK.
An MIT study then found more lives would be saved by focusing on those most at risk rather than on society as whole.
By and large, the studies have found that social distancing and masks have done the trick and that lockdowns are not needed if those are observed.
I doubt you will hear ANY of this in MSM.
