Just as low interest rates can be a sign of a monetary policy that was previously too tight, lockdowns can reflect Covid-19 policies that were previously ineffective.

I’ve argued that we need easy money, not low interest rates, and that we need masks, testing and voluntary social distancing, not lockdowns. Others are beginning to agree:

While the culpability could appear to be on a so-called “rushed reopening,” one expert said the blame should instead be placed on the lack of a comprehensive testing and contact tracing system in the US.

And there are increasing suggestions that lack of mask wearing is the big failure:

Jerks are everywhere. But it’s fair to say there are more jerks in the northeastern US than in Utah or Oregon. And people are more likely to follow the rules in Japan, Korea, and Germany than in most other countries. (China’s a bit different, but then they have much more draconian polices.)

Update: Tyler Cowen linked to a related paper.

What about that “shortage” of masks? There are now so many masks that the price has fallen to three cents:

But with the coronavirus now largely controlled in China and production lines back on track, the face mask shortage has subsided, and prices have dropped from 1 yuan each all the way down to 0.2 yuan, Pan said. He still has 2 million face masks in stock, waiting to be sold, at his warehouse in the eastern Anhui province.

On the other hand, I’ve also argued that lockdowns are not the primary cause of our depression. Look at retail sales in Denmark and Sweden:

That data comes from this paper.

A study by Lisa B. Kahn, Fabian Lange, and David G. Wiczer shows the same pattern in the US:

We use job vacancy data collected in real time by Burning Glass Technologies, as well as initial unemployment insurance (UI) claims data to study the impact of COVID-19 on the labor market. Our data allow us to track postings at disaggregated geography and by detailed occupation and industry. We find that job vacancies collapsed in the second half of March and are now 30% lower than their level at the beginning of the year. To a first approximation, this collapse was broad based, hitting all U.S. states, regardless of the intensity of the initial virus spread or timing of stay-at-home policies. UI claims also largely match these patterns. Nearly all industries and occupations saw contraction in postings and spikes in UI claims, regardless of whether they are deemed essential and whether they have work-from-home capability. The only major exceptions are in essential retail and nursing, the “front line” jobs most in-demand during the current crisis.

PS. The recent drug test out of the UK looks to me like the first really promising result during this pandemic. I know that other tests have been reported as positive, but the data always looked iffy to me. This data really does look pretty strong. If true, we may see death rates fall faster than case rates in the future, a process that may already be underway, even accounting for the increased testing rate.

Not sure why this isn’t a bigger news story . . .

HT: Sam Bowman, Razib Khan

The NYT is certainly in decline. The recent Tom Cotton op ed got a lot of attention, but you can find many similar examples of sloppy reasoning. Yesterday, an op ed called for the abolition of police:

When people, especially white people, consider a world without the police, they envision a society as violent as our current one, merely without law enforcement — and they shudder.

No, that’s certainly not what they “envision”. Most people don’t envision a world as violent as our current one, they envision a world that’s 10 times more violent. Unless you understand the thinking of those on the other side, you won’t get anywhere.

I’m not saying the world would be 10 times more violent if the police were abolished; perhaps it would be no more violent than our current world. First we need to consider what would replace the police.

I suspect that where I live (Mission Viejo), the police would be replaced by private security companies. I’d sign up, and so would my affluent neighbors. You might argue that when people call for abolishing the police they also mean abolishing private police forces. But of course if you abolished the police then there’d be no one to enforce the abolition of private police forces. So that’s what we’d get in Mission Viejo.

What about in neighborhoods where people were too poor to pay for private security forces? In that case, I’d expect gangs to patrol neighborhoods and extort “protection money” from residents. Perhaps this already happens to some extent, but it would likely happen to a greater extent without a police force. Recall the theory that the first “governments” were roving groups of bandits that settled down to maximize revenue. Fortunately, America doesn’t have many neighborhoods that are that poor.

I suspect that the private security companies in Mission Viejo would contract with arbitration firms to take over the role of courts. In poorer areas, vigilante justice might become more common. I don’t expect private police to waste much time with a war on drugs, but who knows?

Some of you know more about anarchy than I do. Please let me know what I’ve missed.

PS. Some people worry about the current wave of political correctness. While PCism may be the wave of the future, stupidity is not. In the long run, the cream will rise to the top. In the long run, there’s no danger of the lunatics taking over the asylum. If the NYT completely collapses, then some other paper will take over as the authoritative source of information for intellectuals.

The Nazis killed people by the tens of millions. So did the Maoists. We don’t see anything remotely comparable in the modern developed world. To even suggest so is hysterical or offensive—probably both. Readers know that I’m a utilitarian, which means I think quantities are important, indeed all important.

And yet . . . to compare two things is NOT to suggest that they are comparable. At least not in the “similar” sense of the term ‘comparable’.

At a stylistic level there are deep similarities between modern (Western) political movements and the worst excesses of the 20th century.

Maoists believed in the idea of “capitalist privilege”. Even if you were poor, the mere fact that your ancestors were landlords meant you needed to acknowledge this taint and be apologetic. Those that were working class should be favored. They believed that silence on political issues was not acceptable, you had to affirmatively spout the party line. They believed in tearing down statues that were seen as reactionary. They believed in the young engaging in the public shaming of older people with non-PC views. They believed in forcing public apologies, even though both sides knew that the apologies were insincere.

And they killed tens of millions of people.

Nazis engaged in the big lie. Truth was whatever the Great Leader said. They believed in white-washing history, promoting a fake version that glorified the homeland. They demonized minorities and foreigners, using them as scapegoats for the country’s problems. They were misogynist. They were corrupt. They were cruel, relishing humor that made fun of the suffering of their enemies. They were pro-torture. They were militaristic, favoring parades with a big show of force. They were anti-intellectual, suspicious of professors, artists, reporters, etc.

And they killed tens of millions of people.

In contrast, modern American right wing nationalists and left wing PC proponents almost never kill anyone, at least not directly.

As I keep saying, the first time as tragedy and the second time as farce.

PS. How many intellectuals out there think I’m “half right” in these comparisons? And how often do those who think I’m half right believe I’m correct in my comparisons of the styles of those on the other side of the spectrum. I suspect that about 95% of intellectuals think I’m half right.

The Financial Times attached a bizarre headline to a recent news story:

Jay Powell delivers dovish message to financial markets

Jay Powell could have used this week’s meeting of Federal Reserve policymakers to project confidence that the US economy had turned a corner after the shock of the coronavirus pandemic, with the jobs market showing signs of early recovery and equity prices continuing to rally. 

Instead, the Fed chairman and his fellow monetary policymakers reinforced their dire assessment of the country’s economic prospects for the coming years, which will require a heavy dose of support from the US central bank just about as far over the economic horizon as they can see.

In their first economic projections since December, Fed officials estimated that by 2022, the US would still be facing 5.5 per cent unemployment, far higher than pre-coronavirus levels, with core inflation at 1.7 per cent, still below its target of 2 per cent.

Fed economic forecasts are different from private forecasts for the same reason that a ship captain’s forecast of the ship’s path is different from a passenger forecast.

The Fed expects prices to rise by 4.2% between 2019 and 2022, assuming appropriate policy, far below the 6% increase they have targeted. They have provided no explanation as to why this policy stance is appropriate.

Despite the FT headline, this is a very hawkish policy.

It’s becoming more and more obvious that we completely blew it, with a wide variety of villains (including me.)

We went for lockdowns, when the actual solution was masks, testing and voluntary social distancing. If we had done those things in early February then the death total would likely be less that 115, not 115,000. Yeah, I know this would have been politically impossible in the USA, but it still needs to be said. We blew it.

A new study suggests that masks alone will keep R0 below 1.0, if worn by just 50% of the population. If you have near 100% usage as in some East Asian countries then R0 will be far below 1.0.

The study found that if people wear masks whenever they are in public it is twice as effective at reducing the R value than if masks are only worn after symptoms appear.

In all scenarios the study looked at, routine face mask use by 50% or more of the population reduced COVID-19 spread to an R of less than 1.0, flattening future disease waves and allowing for less stringent lockdowns.

I like this graphic:

At least as recently as May, a major US manufacturer had 7 million/month in surgical mask production lines inactive, due to stupid government policies. (Probably due to price gouging restrictions.)

And what can you say about a country that doesn’t even have the police wear masks?

Americans have been spoiled for far too long.

Some claim that the BCG vaccine helps, but a new study pours cold water on that theory:

The Bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) tuberculosis vaccine has immunity benefits against respiratory infections. Accordingly, it has been hypothesized that it may have a protective effect against COVID-19. 12 randomized controlled trials are currently underway to test this hypothesis, but their results shall not be available before at least five months. Instead, this paper uses a nationwide natural experiment. In April 1975, Sweden discontinued newborns BCG vaccination. The vaccination rate fell from 92% to 2%. I compare the numbers of COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations for cohorts born just before and just after that change. I find no statistically significant differences, and I can reject small BCG effects. Thus, receiving the BCG vaccine at birth does not seem to have a protective effect against COVID-19.

Again, masks, testing and voluntary social distancing (including no hand shaking). Do that and we can avoid a second wave this winter. But I doubt we will.

HT: Razib Khan