New paper on the 1918 influenza finds that cities that were most aggressive about banning public gatherings and other “non-pharmaceutical interventions” BOTH reduced deaths AND saw faster growth after the pandemic 
"In the year after the 1918 Flu Pandemic, there is an uptick in banking assets in cities with early and longer interventions after '18. The effect is statistically significant and economically sizable...
"The economy performed better in areas with more aggressive interventions."
"The economy performed better in areas with more aggressive interventions."
There are more important statistics in a pandemic that annual banking asset growth.
But when people are saying we should "sacrifice lives" to "save the economy," consider the possibility that the economy is people, and reducing mass death is a pretty good idea for a stimulus.
But when people are saying we should "sacrifice lives" to "save the economy," consider the possibility that the economy is people, and reducing mass death is a pretty good idea for a stimulus.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
