Thread by @ToshiAkima

The unspoken assumption of "living with COVID" is that it is in the economic best interests of the nation to allow the self-regulating forces of competition to liquidate the uncompetitive for the sake of net economic gain. Sacrificing lives to the gods reaps monetary rewards

This is a form of Social Darwinism in that it assumes that the self-regulating force shaping society for the better is that of the principle of capitalism as the "survival of the fittest". One devalues the "wealth of nations" by interfering to stop it

https://twitter.com/ToshiAkima/status/1426386786696056834

The assumption comes along that allowing the weak to perish under natural forces of competition increase the "wealth of nations". Economic intervention to support the economy during lockdowns keeps non-viable entities alive in violation of the law of the survival of the fittest

The conclusion then comes that letting people die in a pandemic is good for the economy. To save the economy, Nature must be allowed to liquidate the weak so that the strong may soldier on. This can only be good for stimulating economic growth

In an economic environment where immigration has ground to a halt, losing further participants in the economy can only be harmful. The modern view is that having more economic participants is of net benefit. Grandma babysitting is economic participation too

The view that allowing people to die en masse is good for the economy is simply abject nonsense for which there is no quality evidence. It is the economic equivalent of taking Ivermectin for COVID. Economics is hardly an evidence-based discipline at the best of times

There is an equally valid economic argument to be made to the effect that stimulating the economy with a basic minimum wage for those in lockdown is more beneficial to the economy long-term than allowing mass death by letting COVID rip

The claim that the increase in budget deficit this creates is harmful to the economy has no evidence base to support it. Australia went into a huge budget deficit in WWII which did no harm to the post-war recover

Despite belonging to the same Liberal Party as Scott Morrison, Robert Menzies did not shrink from tolerating a huge budget deficit from the war effort. Morrison finds himself in a similar crisis but cowers from trying to defeat COVID and to save the economy through intervention

Menzies belonged to age predating the bizarre 1980s economic cult of neoliberalism. Menzies would have no have tolerated "living with" being conquered by Germany or Japan to avoid increasing the budget deficit for mindless cultist reasons pursued for its own sake

The only argument that Morrison et al have to support their cultist views is that since they are allowing vast numbers, even thousands, to die, it can only be for the good of the economy, as the vulnerable are left to be liquidated. Menzies will be turning in his grave

Thus if the idea that letting rip with a Biblical scale plague and pestilence upon our land is good for the economy seems like an absurd sophism, that is because it is. We do not object out of a cowardly sentimentality that shrinks from letting thousands die for the greater good

And anyone who says that "living with COVID" doesn't mean letting it rip is lying. COVID spreads exponentially. We have two choices: R>1 as it explodes, or extinguish it into retreat with an R<1. If you reject the latter, then you have embraced the former to "let it rip"