Former Corona-Panicker economist-blogger Tyler Cowen calls for “Covid laissez-faire” policy

[1500 words]

The influential economist, professor, prolific blogger, and commentator Tyler Cowen now says this:

[U]nder current circumstances I favor complete ‘Covid laissez-faire’…” (“The new Covid equilibrium,” Marginal Revolution blog, May 18, 2022).

This is of interest in part because Tyler Cowen was long a mainstay of intellectual Corona-Panickers, those in favor of the Panic itself, those favoring and pushing Panic-driven policies like lockdowns and all the rest.

Many of us have long respected Tyler Cowen as either thinker or commentator or general-purpose intellectual, even if he gets some big things wrong (and “Covid” is not his first consistent wrong-call). The man is of interest because he qualifies, if anyone does, as a legitimate “public intellectual” in the United States today. He has a degree of global reach, and he has some degree of agenda-setting power. His direct and indirect influence is considerable. We should pay attention to what he says, for that reason, but in 2020-21 I suspected his respected-public-intellectual position broke down with his failure to recognize the dark and anti-civilizational forces of the Corona-Panic in 2020.

Professor Cowen became one of the many who failed us, so terribly failed us, in that annus horribilis of lockdowns, restrictions and disruptions of all kinds, a bizarre state-backed cult centered around a flu virus, and attendant retreat of the business of civilization. Now, the good professor has begun consistently signaling that he opposes the Corona-Panic, or at least key parts of it. He does NOT, though, claim he was “against it all along.” He lacks the kind of demagogic instinct to claim that….

If he’d emerged in spring 2020 as a hardline Anti-Panicker, rather than embracing the Panic, people would’ve listened. If only he’d called for “Covid laissez-faire” in spring 2020!

Now that we have emerged from the fog somewhat, here in comparatively sunny 2022, it seems too harsh to discard Tyler Cowen entirely for his disgraceful pushing of the Panic back in yesteryear. I would still say Tyler Cowen’s emergence as an powerhouse-blogger, intellectual, commentator beginning in the late 2000s has yielded more good than harm within U.S. discourse. His few notable weaknesses back in his ascent period (mid-2000s to early 2010s or so) made him palatable to the ‘Regime,’ and he is now practically a regime-intellectual-insider.

My enthusiasm for Professor Cowen’s turn towards the light is tempered by reading past the headlines, though. On the other hand, it is still good that he is actively pushing against the Panic, even if it is lightly. The alternative is he could have simply gone silent on the Corona Question, and partook instead in the way U.S. discourse now seems to work, drifting from one moral-panic to the next, like a vessel at sea adrift in heavy surf that gets tossed around by the waves.


Is Tyler Cowen now “Anti”-Corona-Panic?

Two new political coalitions formed in 2020 as people confronted and engaged with the behemoth-social-force of the Corona-Panic in 2020.

The (eventually) dominant coalition, which achieved ‘Regime’ backing most places that matter, was the “Pro-Panic” coalition; an oppositional “Anti-Panic” coalition emerged, and eventually scored some major victories. (It was partly through Anti-Panic side’s sustained energy and efforts that by early spring 2022 the Panic and the Panic-regimes had been defeated on most fronts.) We who lived through the Corona-Panic can remember the two sides.

These coalitions held for two years. But people moved back and forth between them to some extent. Hail To You has been consistently in the Anti-Panic camp from early on. Tyler Cowen and many other others, for reasons we should take interest in figuring out, caved in and joined the Panickers and the Lockdowners, later also becoming a Vaccine promoter.

A closer look at Tyler Cowen’s current views shows that while he was definitely an aggressive Pro-Panic partisan in 2020 and beyond, an while his recent change-of-heart to “Covid laissez-faire” does seem genuine of a sort, the change is not a truly ideological one.

What I mean is, if you read beyond the headlines or slogans (“Covid laissez-faire”), Tyler Cowen is still a believer. He is still rather loyal to key tenets of Corona. He cannot be called an Anti-Panicker, a defector from his original Covid-political coalition to this other one. Some of his rhetoric on vaccines still seems Pro-Panic.

In placing where the former Corona-Panicker professor-blogger stands today, he may fit in a “Non-Panic” camp. To his credit, he still addresses the Corona problem relatively regularly, but his “Non-Panic” position (against Pro-Panic and against Anti-Panic) stands on moral soft ground. A nation of people holding such ground can see that ground washed away if Lockdown-maniacs take up their torches again and form a mob and take action.

Soon after reiterating his commitment to “Covid laissez-faire,” in a column that may reach millions of pairs of eyes, Professor Cowen called for getting rid of “Covid”-testing for international airport arrivals (“Let’s eliminate the Covid test entry requirement for the U.S.” [May 18, 2022, published at Bloomberg]).

Cowen calls entry-testing “hygiene theater.” Of course he’s right. It imposes a deadweight loss on travelers in time, stress, and money, and likely prevents a lot of normal activity due to an arbitrary regulation, all textbook examples of what economists should oppose. Pointless costs in time, stress, and money for no gain. Why is this ridiculous policy still in place?

I don’t think Cowen even makes the best possible arguments in his Bloomberg column, but at least his voice is on the correct side. (Often at high cost or difficult-to-obtain, these pre-departure tests are perhaps more understandable to a martian anthropologist as religious in nature, ritual-offerings to the Corona-Moloch god; some who lose this Corona-lottery can end up personally sacrificed and stranded at their own expense, disfavored by the Corona-Moloch.)

Corona-Panic-loyalism is a funny thing. Professor Cowen’s lingering sympathies with the Panic are clear in that Bloomberg column, as he laces most of what he says with standard Corona-Panic talking-points, which leaves a bad taste in the mouth when consumed with the main dish here. I quote from the (half?-)reformed-Panicker Tyler Cowen on the flight testing requirement that stupidly still exists:

“I am not arguing for passivity in the face of danger. It is distressing that US policymakers do not seem interested in spending big for pandemic preparedness. America needs a new Operation Warp Speed for pan-coronavirus vaccines and nasal spray vaccines. It should be gathering more data on Covid and improving its system of clinical trials for anti-Covid remedies, among other measures.”

Some of this sounds reasonable, but it is so mixed up with, or laced with, Corona-Panic poison-pills that I have to be optimistic but cautious, or skeptical.

Also this: When Tyler Cowen last week told his blog-readers that he was for “Covid laissez-faire,” he immediately qualified it by saying he any laissez-faire Covid policy should include “subsidies for new and better vaccines” (!).

It does not, alas, seem that Professor Cowen has really appreciated the degree to which he and his fellow Panic-pushers of 2020 were simply wrong on the facts. As for vaccines, they were a long-extension of the Corona-Panic standard-fare by which everyone abandoned risk-benefit and cost-benefit. I don’t know why Tyler Cowen himself fell in with the Panic crowd, but many of them latched onto an apocalyptic and false vision of reality, embracing delusional thinking common to people with psychiatric disorders, and for some reason were unable to let it go, and got it reinforced from above daily.

The semi-reformed-Panicker Professor Cowen also expresses unironic fear over the horrifying specter he has dreamed up of repeated “re-infections,” even several reinfections every year by the Wuhan Apocalypse Virus and its descendants. This paranoid view dismisses or ignores generations’ worth of accumulated virology and epidemiology, so loyalty-inducing the Panic seems to have been to many.

Tyler Cowen’s own blog-comment-section “commentariat” seems around half firmly Anti-Panic. The Marginal Revolution blog commentariat is usually reasonable, generally high IQ, ideologically mixed, but over the past two years showed itself more committedly against the Corona-Panic (Anti-Panic, in my terms) than the general population, if not overwhelmingly so.

In response to his (many) critics, Tyler Cowen says this:

“I know many of you like to say “No worse than the common cold!”  Well, the thing is…the common cold imposes considerable costs on the world.  Imagine a new common cold, which you catch a few times a year, with some sliver of the population getting some form of Long Covid [i.e., Long Common Cold?].”

Oh, dear professor. Do you realize what you are saying? By the implication of your words, a permanent respiratory-virus-panic regime is in order. This undermines the position you wish to project in 2022 as a reformed-Panicker. Your own implicit promise to us, perhaps to yourself, perhaps to God, that no more shall you shove slimy buckets of Corona-Panic sludge on the reading public. Stay on the wagon, Professor Cowen!

The endorsement of “Long Covid” is troublesome. We have considerable evidence that “Long Covid” does not exist (i.e., is psychosomatic in most cases, and the remainder is not statistically different from influenzas). Not only is this suspicious condition very real in Professor Cowen’s world, the costs thereof “will run into the trillions over the next ten years.” Sharp commenters savaged him for this, especially the “Long Covid” thing.

Addressing his commetariat critics, he says:

“I will read many of [your comments] as not much better than ‘I just don’t want to think about this, I am still in denial’…”

How do we interpret this? It does seem like Tyler Cowen is still a Corona-believer. I’ve become interested in what motivated the man to become a Panic-partisan, Panic-pusher, Panic-apologist, Panic-defender in the first place.


Why did Tyler Cowen embrace the Corona-Panic?

What made Tyler Cowen embrace the Corona-Panic in 2020, hold to it in 2021, continue to show obvious emotional loyalty to it in 2022? This despite now actively calling for “Covid laissez-faire.” The latter is part a recognition of facts on the ground and partly, I suppose, a rational approach, while the Panic-loyalty is an emotional commitment, which one would not have guessed Tyler Cowen would have gone for, but so it is.

Tyler Cowen’s (and others’) refusal to make a reasonable statistical assessment, refusal to admit error and reassess when the data become overwhelming, are more puzzling than his refusal to stand on principle that the western tradition over many centuries has refused doing things like “we” did in 2020 (which in important ways was am embrace of medieval superstition). Of all sorts of people, one would think an economist would not fall into these traps. He did. He is willing now to lukewarmly snipe at the weakened Corona-Moloch, but he was not willing when it mattered.

This is an editorial cartoon that accompanied one of Tyler Cowen’s Panic-pushing Bloomberg columns in April 2020:

I have been a little harsh on Tyler Cowen here. I should end by saying I have a considerable degree of respect for the man, and what he has done with his popular and long-running blog, Marginal Revolution. I regret that in 2020 the man disgraced himself by embracing the Corona-Panic, agitating for lockdowns, belittling opponents of the Panic, and all the rest. His Marginal Revolution blog is one of the places I stopped reading. Consuming Corona-Panic-gruel prole-feed is bad for body and mind, but at some point even engaging with it to oppose it was unpleasant.

Tyler Cowen could regain a healthy portion of dignity, and do a great deed for us all, by continuing to follow the better angels of his nature (moral inner voice) which seem to be urging him to keep sniping at the guardians of the Panic and their holdover pet policies like the idiotic and wasteful international travel testing requirement.

Sometimes public-personalities might present their curated public-facing personas or views in ways not totally aligned to their actual thinking. This may hold here. Some of Tyler Cowen’s CoronaPanic-loyal rhetoric in spring 2022 must simply be the continuation of the emotional commitment he made in 2020 but which he no longer believes. If this be the case, keep struggling to get onto the side of truth, beauty, and light, Professor Cowen, and against the darkness. We need people like you to slay the Corona-Panic beast now in its highly weakened condition, make sure that it does not revive itself again to torment the people, which I fear it will. I gear the Corona-Panic beast will haunt the land for years to come.

I am left with the question of “why?” Why did someone as smart as Tyler Cowen “fall for it”? Why does he still feel the need to signal Panic-loyalty even when he is arguing against specific of general Panic-policies? This is all part of the ongoing mystery of what the heck happened to us in annus horribilis 2020.



This entry was posted in The Corona Mass Hysteria Pandemic and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Former Corona-Panicker economist-blogger Tyler Cowen calls for “Covid laissez-faire” policy

  1. Dieter Kief says:

    “I am left with the question of “why?” Why did someone as smart as Tyler Cowen “fall for it”? Why does he still feel the need to signal Panic-loyalty even when he is arguing against the specific of general Panic-policies?”

    In times of trouble people seek “shelter from the storm” (the Bard, 81 since May 24th) in the herd. Being in the herd (=  feeling protected) is the basic act. So: This all happens in a very emotion-driven and subjective realm. Such realms exist and are part of our social reality:
    When arguing against the positions held in the herd, you better be cautious. Because people like it a lot “to be protected”, as they see it. Since Tyler Cowen was part of the herd for a while, he knows this fact most likely all too well – and thus he is indeed cautious.

    Now: I’m not saying, everybody should act (and argue) as cautious/defensive as Tyler Cowen. I just answered your question concerning Tyler Cowen you posed above, Mr. Hail.

    2) Right now, I think Danish vaccine-researcher of thirty years Professor Christine Stabell Benn makes a proposition that might be the basis for a reasonable pragmatic way out of our vaccine-conundrums at least. She says: After Omikron (= now….) – no vaccines for people under 75, unless younger patients insist on being vaccinated. Vaccinations for those over 75 only if they suffer from severe medical conditions (= are very frail).

    This interview with her is quite accessible for lay-people too, methinks

     I had psychologist Paul Watzlawick in mind while writing: That you can’t communicate without the emotional side of – whatever you say. Pure facts do not exist in the social world. It is a result of all kinds of civilizational efforts to enable people to debate their version of facticity.
    – See too Jürgen Habermas juridical (!) philosophical work Facticity and Validity. This could be read as an attempt to look at Watzlawick’s ideas from a perspective of the inner logic of what we conceive as juridically right or wrong (How we make these distinctions – and how well (=how deeply) those are rooted in our value system. Philosopher and sociologist Habermas’ way out is: A rational/reasonable political process of pros and cons about each given subject…(and he does make the point, that such rational/reasonable methods or political strategies .d.o. .n.o.t. enable us to avoid mistakes in the process of our political decision makings. (Of course he reflects on this problem too, but I prefer not to – go any furhter now).

  2. Hail says:

    A Twitter person and critic of this effort to elucidate Professor Cowen’s reformed views on “Covid” policy, A.E. Clarke, says:

    “This article is complete bunk, oh my god. Not only does the author not even try to hide any of their bias (a great sign), they blatantly misstate a number of facts.

    …[Y]ou’re misstating what [Tyler Cowen] says. He openly says ‘in current circumstances’…”

    • I hate that I even went to twitter to look for what this A.E. Clarke had to say, but curiosity got the better of me. He is apparently under the impression that you are not just the one guy, Mr. Hail, but a cabal of anti-panickers. (Just going by his writing in English, is all…)

      “Not only does the author not even try to hide any of their bias…”

      Fess, up, Mr. Hails! How many of you are there?

      • Hail says:

        Browsing a Twitterer heaver-user’s most recent x number of tweets gives you a cross-section of their consciousness. That and the profile info.

        A. E. Clarke says this of himself: “actor, student, plant Daddy. Cis gay (he/him). Bipolar/ADHD. #blacklivesmatter. [From] Windsor, Ontario.”

        His recent tweets show he remains a Covid Believer.

        As of mid-April 2022, he endorsed the work of a Mr. Ed Tubb of the Toronto Star, who claimed ‘Covid waves’ are “associated with lifting mask mandates”; that “we’re likely to see more serious illness in children”; and that “reintroducing masking would be an effective and practical intervention.”

  3. Hail says:

    RE: Dieter Kief’s comments above on why Tyler Cowen may have (apparently) embraced the Panic rather than apply his economist mind to attacking the Panic:

    My thoughts are similar. Something in me wants to believe that Tyler Cowen would not have “fallen for it” ten or twenty years ago.

    His blog Marginal Revolution has an ‘About’ page stating it was founded in 2003. Tyler Cowen was then an unknown economics professor, as far as I know. His blog became one of the more influential intellectual-political blogs around by the late 2000s, one of the blogging success stories of the era. In this ‘ascent’ era, the 2000s, especially before fame, maybe he would’ve reacted to an event like that in much different terms.

    What I like about Tyler Cowen is/was that he was interested in ideas, and put up with ideas-based non-PC people, both usually allowing their comments and sometimes linking to their writings. Tyler Cowen never seemed to me an ideologue, but a semi-obsessive pursuer of ideas. That’s the image I have of him, and I mean it to be a good one.

    By the late 2010s, it’s fair to say Professor Cowen had become a true celebrity of sorts, and eventually a power-player. He became a regular Bloomberg columnist in mid-2016. He is regularly interviewed in agenda-setting media.

    We might posit that Tyler Cowen would have been a principled and consistent Anti-Panicker on the ‘Corona’ political spectrum if ‘Corona’ had happened before 2015 or 2012 or some time. Someone might test this, see if any proto-Panicker attitudes in 2009-10 during the “Swine Flu” are findable. (“Swine Flu” 2009 totally failed to trigger a Flu Panic like 2020, but the seeds of a Pro-Panic attitude might be findable.)

  4. I’ve heard of Tyler Cowen, heard his blog mentioned quite a bit, and maybe I’ve looked at it once or twice. This is not from that experience, but from your writing it sounds like Tyler Cowen is NOT any kind of man of principle. The only economists that I assume are men of principle are the Libertarians, as there really is only that one principled stance one could take, economically.

    I guess I wouldn’t expect too much from the guy either. He favors laissez-faire on the Kung Flu at the present time, because maybe that sounds the most expedient … for now. However, we know from your discussion of his history of his pro-Panic stance that he was not in favor of letting people make their own decisions before, so he may not be again.

    It’s wasn’t your point here to recommend or not the Marginal Revolution website, but your post has me sure that I have plenty of other stuff on the internet to read. No thanks on Tyler Cowen.

    BTW, I liked that “Wuhan Apocalypse Virus”. How about the Wuhan Apocalypse Viral Epidemic? WAVE to the nice Big White* men over there, little ones. Stay negative , errr safe, y’all.


    * China LOCKDOWN redux term there. “Big Whites” are the guys running around in the summer in Shanghai in full biohazard suits, swabbing everything and anything, trucks, fish, chickens, and even the kitty cats!

    • Hail says:

      “the guys running around in the summer in Shanghai in full biohazard suits, swabbing everything”

      These bozos were doing that in early 2020, crucial early Corona-Panic propaganda. The (characteristic) deception by China does not quite seem to fit the facts to explain the phenomenon of what the Panic became in the West, where it really mattered.

    • Hail says:

      “No thanks on Tyler Cowen”

      In a comment above, I wrote: “What I like about Tyler Cowen is/was that he was interested in ideas, and put up with ideas-based non-PC people.”

      This still applies, but more weakly than in the past.

      The Corona-Panic may have weakened his inquisitiveness, mega-scale humiliation ritual as it was. I don’t know for sure if he ever banned ‘Covid’ Skeptics or any variety of Anti-Panickers.

  5. “Cowen calls entry-testing “hygiene theater.” Of course he’s right.” I agree with him and you both, Mr. Hail. You are quite right about the money- and time-wasting aspects of it all. (Story in a bit.)

    People at airports, including me, call the TSA’s ridiculous Constitution-violating searches of property and persons “security theater” too. However, it’s in place, it’s been 20 years now, and it sure doesn’t seem like it’ll ever go away. Will this be the case for the hygiene theater too? Once you get these things started, they don’t go away, not for good anyway.

    The nursing home we have been to lately has a thermometer attached to the wall, with a sensor for the forehead. (The place requires face masks in the hallways too – that may never go away.) Anyway, that wall-mounted thermometer is not particularly accurate. I think they may have it adjusted to read down 1 degree F at least, simply to avoid trouble. One of us read 96F or 94F, some number that would indicate he may have just been rescued after falling overboard into Lake Superior (yes, even in Summer!) and being in the water for 15 minutes. That’s OK – at least he does not have the Flu Manchu.

  6. Hail says:

    Tyler Cowen is back, possibly slyly pushing a Corona party-line. His mini-review of an orthodox (Pro-Panic, pro-Experimental Vaccine) book, released in early 2022:

    “Dan Werb, The Invisible Siege: The Rise of Coronavirus and the Search for a Cure. An excellent book on the history of coronaviruses more generally, with much of the strongest material coming on how earlier coronavirus investigations fed into the progress we have made on Covid-19. Recommended, not just what all the other Covid books are telling you.”

    I open myself to accusations of judging books by their cover, but Professor Cowen’s phrasing, and more importantly framing, in his mini-review has me grabbing hold of my metaphorical wallet.

  7. Hail says:

    RE: Peak Stupidity comment above on “hygiene theater,” “security theater”:

    There is another part of the Corona-Panic phenomenon I don’t have as cute a name for as “security theater” or “hygiene theater.” It has to do with presenting a scientific facade for the thin-gruel behind the curtain. A high-brow version of the usual Corona-prolefeed of the kind dumped onto all mainstream discourse, barrel after leaky barrel of Corona-info-sludge, for much of two years. I hesitate to borrow to lazily d christen this “sciencey theater.”

    Hygiene theater plausibly placates Panickers in public. this “Sciencey Theater” sucks in otherwise-good people who should know better, and given that the targets live “lives of the mind,” it is just as real to them. This seems like a lonely proposition, to say that obviously-intelligent people got mesmerized by a thin-gruel Flu Panic, but I cannot escape it. Tyler Cowen is a great example (and on which, see his latest salvo.)

    Although you are not familiar with Tyler Cowen, the same applies to many of the Unz Review writers you are very familiar with. Tyler Cowen, though, has become a minor star of the international-Rules Based Order-consensus-type commentariat. That makes him sound really boring, I’m sure, which undersells his value. I recommend spending a few minutes browsing some of his posts or comment sections before dismissing him entirely.

  8. Hail says:

    Excellent June 2022 conversation with Nick Hudson, “one of the heroes” of the Corona-Panic. On the ‘who,’ the ‘how,’ the ‘why’ the Panic happened. A breath of fresh air, worth the time to listen to (70m):

    (Nick Hudson is a White South African. I don’t know who that is in the background-image on that page.)

  9. Hail says:

    Cowen’s and Sailer’s current views on the Panic

    Professor Tyler Cowen‘s track record in the mid-2022 period or so, on the Corona topic, I assess to be this: Post up to several vaguely Corona-Panic-narrative-supportive links or comments per week, possibly calculated to elicit discussions from his own readership. I estimate his commentariat now to be at 45% firm Anti-Panic (uncompromising, radical); 15% firm/loyalist Pro-Panic; and 40% middle positions but leaning against the Panic with the times.

    Cowen also tosses in ambiguous Anti-Panic counter-points. Yesterday we see what may be the most unambiguous yet:

    Post-Covid excess deaths in Britain” (Marginal Revolution, Aug. 21, 2022).

    “[T]he number of non-Covid excess deaths will soon outstrip deaths from the virus this year […] So what is going on? Experts believe decisions taken by the Government in the earliest stages of the pandemic may now be coming back to bite.”

    No kidding!

    Data-based argument-lines of a kind that opponents of the Panic were using two years ago finally find a place even with the once-committed Panicker, Tyler Cowen.

    The top comment is from Mr. Steve Sailer, who to my knowledge has not actively written about the ‘pandemic’ hardly at all this year. When mentioning the retrograde, civilization-shaking “counter-measures” and follow-on effects, he tends to stress other causes or treat effects as a mystery.

    Steve Sailer’s current view, from his comment:

    “Excess deaths in the U.S. have largely followed covid case surges by a few weeks” but also “Americans have gotten much sloppier and self-indulgent over the last 27 months.”

    This second line seems to balance the first, but is ambiguous on what is to blame for the “sloppiness” (implying higher death rates from many causes), a flu virus’ natural circulation around the world, or the Corona-Panic as a social shock and the Corona-regimes that took power along with the Panic. He is not quite willing to say the latter.

    • Dieter Kief says:

      I’d say that with “sloppier” Steve Sailer means what he writes most about lately: Rising number of traffic accidents; accidental – almost casual shootings / killings…the rising number of drug-addicts and homeless people (homelessness as a huge factor with regard to life-years lost)…
      Except for that he just goes with the flow here. I think he decided to play it rather safe (= more mainstream lately). He’s getting older too…

      (((He seems to fear not least the occasional weirdo. I can blame no one for that.)))

  10. Hail says:

    An angry and not very polite response to Steve Sailer at Marginal Revolution:

    “What kind of nitwits would push a 2 year lockdown over a glorified flu/cold virus. And all that mask idiocy. And even the zealous vaccine stuff was overdone and sloppy.

    The vicious lockdown inflicted lifelong psychological problems on little children. All so we could get rid of Trump.”

    RAD replies: “The response to this novel respiratory virus was not designed to oust your dear leader and Truther in Chief.”

    Several replies of interest followed, on a topic discussed here at Hail To You over the past 2.5 years off and on, and most recently under the “Germany’s Wrongest Man” post: the relationship between the Corona-Panic, geopolitics, ideology.

    OldCurmodgeon wrote:

    “Don’t underestimate the desire to stay in the good graces of Washington. An amusing example of this effect was the surreal spectacle of Macron criticizing the new Mississippi abortion law (upheld in Dobbs) even though France (i.e., the country *he* leads) has significantly more restrictive abortion rules than does Mississippi.”

    Anonymous-11:07:33 wrote:

    “Governments that locked down were for the most part aping America’s policies, regardless of the reasoning behind those policies. Those that did not, such as Sweden, were ridiculed. It’s like buying IBM, thinking might get you better results, but copying America means you won’t be blamed when you fail.”

    The discussion bogs down because people start comparing timelines of who did what, when. What that timelining misses is: the Panic did not start with the first ‘lockdown’ order, and it lasted two years, a “staying power” so strong we cannot exactly something blame it on single ‘lockdown’ decisions at the very start!

    Todd K adds:

    “An official in Norway’s health department said they were under enormous pressure to lockdown as they were going Sweden’s route, and buckled.”

  11. Hail says:

    A Marginal Revolution commenter writes this, in response to the “sloppiness and self-indulgence” comment from Steve Sailer:

    “I imagine lockdowns significantly weakened civil society and the ‘soft power’ they exerted over behavior,… an effect separate from and in addition to the collapse of trust in institutions.”

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s