I think it’s too soon to draw many conclusions yet, but at least one study is finding that stricter covid mitigations resulted in an economic upside vs places with looser restrictions. The theory which I have often supported throughout this pandemic is summarized here:
Yet for much of the past year, some experts have quietly advanced a counterargument: that economic activity is mainly affected by the rising and falling severity of the pandemic itself — not the relative strictness of the measures implemented to mitigate it. In fact, these experts argued, nonpharmaceutical interventions, or NPIs — a set of 20 government responses such as business closures, mask mandates and stay-at-home advisories that Oxford University rates according to stringency— can have an economic upside. The more the virus seems to be under control, the more eager people will be to participate in the economy.
For those who followed this thread along from the start you may remember me talking at nauseam about the economy not working when a large number of people sit out. This study is supporting that theory. I think many more studies will be needed and I caution anyone jumping to conclusions because the economy is driven by different segments of the economy in different regions (tourism vs manufacturing vs technology vs service companies, etc). It’s an interesting theory and an interesting read. I’m sure we will see many more similar studies going forward and the next phase will be to observe the impact on vaccination level on the economy going forward.
Not only did big states with more stringent COVID measures end 2020 with fewer infections per capita, they also tended to post better economic growth numbers last year than states with fewer restrictions.
www.yahoo.com