The benefits of new technologies accrue not only to high-skilled labor but also to owners of capital in the form of higher capital incomes. This increases income and wealth inequality.
Coincidentally this @voxdotcom "Billionaires Explained" show has a pretty good intuitive version of our theory netflix.com/watch/81097618 (from minute 8:00), there explained by @JeffDSachs.
It's also worth adding that standard theories predict exactly the opposite, namely that (in the long-run) all benefits of automation accrue to labor in the form higher wages.
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/
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?