The following is a excerpt from an article by Patrick Barron that discusses the economics of lockdowns. The main conclusion of the article is that centrally planned responses to this type of situation are doomed to failure because central planners are incapable of determining the value of anything.

Knowing what to produce requires a price system. A price system requires private ownership of the means of production. Why? Because the price system rests on individually held hierarchical scales of values. And the hierarchical scale of values require private ownership of the means of production. In other words, if you don't own something, you cannot know its worth. This doesn't mean that everyone has the same hierarchical scale of values. But all these individual scales of value do meet in the marketplace to determine marginal prices at given points of time. Your Beanie Baby collection may be worth a thousand dollars in today's market and possibly zilch tomorrow. Now, your beanie baby collection may be priceless to you and you don't really care about its value to others. But if you decided to make a business of selling Beanie Babies or even to simply sell your collection, you would be forced to confront the reality of the marketplace.

You may well ask what this has to do with covid-19. covid-19 isn't a marketable good. It isn't owned by anyone. No one wants it. Quite the opposite in fact. True. Nevertheless, government's response to covid-19 assumes that it knows everyone's personal risk hierarchy and can tailor an appropriate public response. This is as impossible as knowing values in a socialist commonwealth. In the place of a hierarchy of wants, we have a hierarchy of risk. And just as everyone's hierarchy of wants is different, everyone's hierarchy of risk is different. No one can deny this. We see it played out everywhere. Young people in college assess their personal health risk from covid-19 as very low. The aged and those suffering from other illnesses assess their personal health risk as very high. Furthermore, one's response is determined by what one gives up. The elderly living on pensions may be giving up very little in a lockdown or quarantine other than their social lives. Certainly they are not giving up their life-sustaining income by staying in semi-isolation. But those still of working age have a very different tradeoff. Business owners who are forced to shut down may lose their entire wealth. Salaried and hourly workers may see a slower drain on their wealth, but the longer the lockdowns continue, the more accumulated wealth they will see drain away.

I have used stereotypical broad categories here for illustrative comparisons only. Of course, those of the same age, health profile, wealth accumulation, etc. may have entirely different personal risk assessments. The old adage applies that no two people are alike. These facts of human existence make universally acceptable public policy responses to covid-19 not just difficult but impossible. The only acceptable public response is one of perfect liberty; i.e., each individual decides his own response to covid-19 as long as he does no harm to others.

This brings up a common retort that perfect liberty does harm others. A typical government justification for coerced lockdowns and quarantines was that there was a need to conserve hospital beds for the expected onslaught of covid-19 patients. Sounds reasonable at first, but not upon further examination. This so-called line of reasoning rests upon faulty externality theory; i.e., that everything you do affects others in some degree. By this logic government has a right to regulate everything you do. Forgetting for a moment that government's access to information is no greater than that of thousands of others, there is the ethical problem of government's right to determine to whom a private entity may offer services. For example, a private hospital may refuse patients who wish to have elective surgery in order to preserve beds for what the hospital considers more important patients, but government may not insert its power of coercion into this decision. Like the socialist allocation problem, government has no "skin in the game" and, therefore, it has nothing upon which to make a universally applicable policy except the temporary prejudice of those currently elected to office and/or those currently working for government. Perhaps an even more damning criticism of the externality rationale is that there is no attempt and probably no definitive calculation of the many adverse consequences to lockdowns and quarantines, from delayed medical treatment that leads to worsening health (both physical and mental) or even death to permanent loss of one's ability to feed, house, and clothe one's family adequately.

So, we are left with these conclusions: since all risk is personal, no one knows the risk tolerance of others. Therefore, one's response to covid-19 is a personal decision based upon one’s personal risk assessment. In other words, perfect liberty must be respected, because it is the only rational option. Impractical? This is the very policy actually followed by many of the authors of the current restrictions. Governor Newsom of California attended a lavish dinner party after issuing new and more onerous restrictions on public and private gatherings. Illinois Governor Pritzker has been unapologetic about visiting his many out-of-state residences after telling his constituents not to do the same. Other politicians have been similarly embarrassed. Are they taking unnecessary risks, both to themselves and others? There is no definitive answer. By the very fact that they violated their own restrictions, we can conclude that they valued their freedom to do so above their personally perceived risk. Why should not that same right be available to all of us?

 

I completely agree with that simple statement, and it applies across the board.

 

i've spoken to two people who've had the vaccine. first shot was bad enough. no one's had the second shot yet, but it's supposed to be worst than the first. many of the younger people have tested positive with minor to no symptoms and are not taking the vac. experience is showing that natural infection is preferable. i'll chance natural infection, thank you.

 

That's my preference too. Also, it's not that bad, as long as you're not already compromised in some way. It's definitely not what the political talking heads and overlords would demand we believe. But that's just my "lived truth".

 

So the synthesized vaccine is supposed to have eternal protection/antibodies against the virus? Whereas getting the actual virus only gives you antibodies for a short time?

 

You'll notice none of the vaccine manufacturers mention how long the shots offer protection. Moderna said up to 3 months. I've lived through this for at least 11 months just fine so far.

 

The protocol is very hypocritical here.
I recently took the swab test and came back negative. I worked with a fellow who tested positive, im around this guy daily.
They want me back to work, wait, what? What happened to the 7-14 day quarantine? I'm not, I'm visiting everyone I can and wearing no mask.

 

we're talking antibodies, right? what you have to keep in mind is the T and B cells which are known to last a very long time and would prevent serious reinfection. also, other than what they're currently researching in South Africa, known reinfections haven't been occurring on a mass scale even though the virus has been in the human population for over a year now. the vaccines are good. they are safe. they're just not necessary for everyone. one company is currently researching an inhaled vac. using an attenuated virus. hopefully, the options will improve over time. Inhaling away the virus: Is the next generation of COVID vaccines on its way?

 

Unless you are in the tiny minority of the vulnerable demographic, of course.

 

You mean the .001%

 

Actually "reported protective ‘efficacy’ results for natural SARS-CoV-2 infection were comparable to the current Covid-19 vaccines". At least 5 months.
Covid-19 Infection Likely to Provide Immunity for at Least Five Months, Study Finds. What That Might Mean.

 

Yes.

 

finding out this evening that the 80 hours of federally backed sick leave for covid-19 became optional for companies 12/31/20. as of this minute the option only extends to 3/31/21. of course this might change with the new administration. Paid COVID-19 Leave Extended on a voluntary Basis Through March 31

 

"...the federal government will provide tax credits/refunds to the employer..."

 

'cause a positive test with no symptoms is almost meaningless. and besides, you're all wearing masks!