While to discuss that im now joined by David Hammond arsen a Research Fellow with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University professor henderson its good to talk to you thank you very much for your time and if youre actually now one of the things that has been possible in me is that all of the call that 19 pandemic is that in many countries its economists spread merrily liberally minded economists who are very much in favor of the strictest lowdown possible while many at the dimmy all exist and other Public Health professionals are a forum or are reserved about such tools mashers how do you explain that. What i think it what economists did early on starting in march the reason university of chicago study was they took the most extreme. Model which was the Imperial College of london model which has been shown to be fundamentally flawed and they said ok lets take that as given and then lets look at lets kind of see what policies will save how many lives and they came up with us an ast
Possible while many epidemiologists and other Public Health professionals are a form more reserved about such total matters how do you explain die out. What i think it what economists did early on starting in march the reason university of chicago study was they took the most extreme. Model which was the Imperial College of london model which has been shown to be fundamentally flawed and they said ok lets take that as given and then lets look at lets kind of see what policies will save how many lives and they came up with us an astounding measure 1760000 wives which now by the way birch really no one believes that anyway thats what they said and then they took this value of a statistical life that economists talk about i can explain that a little more she was multiplied one by the other and while i got almost a trillion dollars in benefits and they said well lock downs are extremely costly but they are going to cost close to a trillion so therefore we should do it. Is was it an economi
Actually now one of the things that has been possible in me is that all of the call that 9000 pandemic is that in many countries its economists spread merrily liberally minded economists who are very much in favor of the strictest possible while many it could mean all exist and other Public Health professionals are a forum or are reserved about such tools mashers how do you explain that. What i think it what economists did early on starting in march the reason university of chicago study was they took the most extreme. Model which was the Imperial College of london model which has been shown to be fundamentally flawed and they said ok lets take that as given and then lets look at lets kind of see what policies will save how many lives and they came up with us an astounding measure 1760000 wives saved which now by the way birch really no one believes that anyway thats what they said and then they took this value of a statistical life that economists talk about i can explain that a littl
Which was the Imperial College london model which has been shown to be fundamentally flawed and they said ok lets take that as given and then lets look at lets kind of see what policies will save how many lives and they came up with us an astounding measure 1760000 wives which now by the way birch really no one believes that anyway thats what they said and then they took this value of a statistical life that economists talk about i can explain that a little more she was multiplied one by the other and valar got almost a trillion dollars in benefits and they said well lock downs are extremely costly but they are going to cost close to a trillion so therefore we should do it. Is was it an economic consideration rather than a moral or ideological one thats correct but by the way i should have said lockdowns let me just read you what they study they study combining home isolation of suspect cases home koren 1000 of those living in the same household as suspect cases and social distancing o
But they are going to cost close to a trillion so therefore we should do it. Is was it an economic consideration rather than a moral or ideological one thats correct but by the way i should have said lockdowns let me just read you what they study they study combine the home isolation of suspect cases home koren 1000 of those living in the same household as suspect cases and social distancing of the elderly and others at most risk well guess what we can we could have a has essentially had all of that without lockdowns so even that was. Done even energy can justify a lot of parents so thats striking and there is a want to call that 19 response that i find i think the most cynical and that is in mandating those top almost to the low down government supposedly chose lives over money and the reason i macs are 2 reasons why i take issue without 1st is that they i think be chose lives over other lives and 2nd the motivating factor if i somebody else of money and im wrong and. Youre correct on