This @TheEconomist article does not reflect the views of most economists I know.
Most economists I know did not "get off on the wrong foot" with epidemiologists. Instead they highly value their work and just try to learn from it as much as possible.
1/
They do not "intensely criticize" epidemiologists' models or their use. Instead they have hugely benefited from them and been very much aware of how difficult it is to forecast an epidemic in the face of limited and fast-changing data availability and quality.
2/
They also try to interact, collaborate with, and get feedback from epidemiologists and public health researchers
@mlipsitch presented at the NBER summer institute in July and gave a very instructive presentation, partly precisely on empirical epi methods conference.nber.org/confer/2020/EF…
4/
And I'm sure there are many more such examples of interactions that are "on the right foot" (though of course arguably still less than optimal)
6/
For a much more accurate description of such interactions and economists' attempts to make sense of policy tradeoffs during this epidemic see this @WSJ article by @wsj_douglasjwsj.com/articles/resea…
7/
As far as I can tell, your and others' economic policy advice assumes single-peaked epidemic scenario.
What if epidemic cycles? Same policies for longer? Or should the policies also cycle?
Clarification: "what should policy response be w cycles in 2nd graph" should have said "what should *economic* policy response be" eg how structure liquidity injections to firms and households?