Economic Lockdowns Are Causing 70x More Life Years Lost Than Covid-19 Otherwise Would
When we interviewed the insightful and controversial Princeton ethics philosopher Peter Singer, he brought up an interesting study by economist Paul Frijters that claims the current set of economic lockdowns are causing 70 times more life years lost than Covid-19 otherwise would had we done nothing. It was surprising to hear such a perspective, since there has been almost unanimous consensus amongst the economics community that the lockdowns are the preferred policy prescription – how did Paul Frijters arrive at this calculation? How justified is his view? And what are the moral-ethical implications of the current measures and his alternative proposals? We reached out, and Prof. Frijters kindly agreed to have this brutally honest conversation with us.
Prof. Frijters has written a series of controversial blog posts on clubtroppo.com.au – topics ranging from how politicians were forced into “crowd-think” and made the unscientific decision of economic lockdown, to why quickly giving everyone Covid to build up herd immunity would be the wisest policy right now. In this interview, we dive deep into those moral-ethical debates and discuss how sensible policy measures can arise out of scientifically rigorous economic thinking. This is one of the most fascinating interviews that Tiger has conducted, and Prof. Frijters’s diagnosis for the current academic environment and social discourse will surely stimulate you in unexpected ways.
Here are some of the questions/objections we raised for Prof. Frijters:
On his calculation of life years lost:
What is your definition for “statistical lives lost” and how did you arrive at the calculation that the economic lockdown could’ve already killed 10 million people?
The difficult part of being fully convinced by your calculation is that it’s nearly impossible to concretely measure those lives lost under your framework, and we simply cannot know what the counterfactual would be. Don’t you think the connection between someone’s death in a few years and how it’s not repaired because of Covid is a bit too tangential or flimsy?
There is no doubt a correlation between wealth and life expectancy, but shouldn’t we keep in mind that “value” is after all merely a subjective concept that we’ve created under a set of economic theories and assumptions, such that the fluctuations in its absolute magnitude might not directly result in tangible losses?
On the moral justification of lockdown:
You presented a slightly different version of the classic Trolley Problem in the context of Covid: politicians and governments seem to be pressured to choose the less optimal option of keeping the economy open. The consequentialists would generally support whatever option that produces the greater aggregate goodness, but not all philosophers accept this notion. How would you respond to possible objections from philosophers like Judith Thomson or T. M. Scanlon? (We explain and analyze those philosophers’ views in the interview around 30:00 to 55:00).
Even though the government might kill fewer people by doing nothing and letting the economy stay open according to your calculation, don’t you think that this mindset is fundamentally reproachable? It is defeatist and inactive – you’re making a choice to sit out of all this crisis and let all those people die rather than trying out a remedy. How would you respond to this objection?
On lockdown:
You compared lockdown protocols instituted in the West to “mass incarceration,” alleging that these decrees are in sharp contrast to what governments have been advocating in past years, like physical contact, being in nature, socializing, and exercising. One might counter that this is an unwarranted accusation, given that these protocols came in response to a public health crisis and weren’t invented out of thin air for the pleasure of the government. How do you justify your claims that shelter in place and lockdowns are “killing good health habits of exercise and socializing for a whole generation?”
On herd immunity and re-opening strategy:
You seem to suggest that the easy thing to do politically is to lift restrictions – whether that will allow you to reach herd immunity is a slightly different question. However, is lifting restriction really the most politically convenient action? Isn't it easier and safer for the government's reputation to go along with “Corona group-think” and simply maintain restrictions so long as the majority of countries do so as well?
You argued that herd immunity is relatively easy to institute, politically speaking, and keeps the economy going, while quarantine and contact tracing measures could terminate certain sectors indefinitely. The New York Times estimates that at least 60% of the population needs to have been exposed to coronavirus in order to be considered immune. Some of the hardest hit cities in the world, such as New York and Madrid are far from reaching that threshold. If countries were to choose to ease social distancing measures and put faith in the herd immunity theory, what would the transition period between relaxing social distancing measures and reaching the 60% threshold look like?
What are some dangers in not knowing how long it will take to achieve herd immunity, and what risks do they pose? In case this plan doesn’t go as planned because the virus mutated or the implementation process was flawed, wouldn’t the potential outcome be disastrous?
and many more questions…
Paul Frijters is currently a Professor in Wellbeing Economics at the LSE. He specializes in applied micro-econometrics, including labor, happiness, and health economics, including measurement and how we all can help the wellbeing of others. He is particularly active with models of cost-effectiveness and how wellbeing can become the driving focus of the nation state bureaucracy.