Many countries have economies reliant on tourism, but it seems the businesses created to serve the tourists weren’t asked their opinions about this overreach. It’s worth adding that investment is the driver of all economic progress, but with travel limited, how many interesting concepts have been suffocated by a lack of exposure to the financiers whose allocations would, in normal times, propel them to greater heights?
Long before the vaccine was created, market signals from China indicated the virus wasn’t terribly lethal for the healthy, but much the same was revealed here. In other words, in a world without a vaccine, the healthy were going to get the virus, but the natural immunity achieved was going to render them less liable to get it again, and spread it.
Similarly, private businesses were in some instances going to shut down altogether, shut down partially, not at all, and many ways in between. What’s important is that varying actions in response to the virus were going to produce voluminous information about how it really spreads, along with the behavior and level of business openness most associated with spread. Human action was going to teach us about the behavior most associated with good health outcomes, while lockdowns based on highly limited information were going to blind us.
The rich and left wing could do their jobs from the Hamptons. And so they moved there. And so did their art, and other sources of entertainment. Those who personify “limousine liberal” got out of town because they could, supported lockdowns because they could, but does anyone think their reaction would have been at all similar had their own livelihoods and source of dignity been threatened?
Market signals plainly never factored into Fauci’s analysis. He made plain that no virus-related risks should be taken, even if it meant economic contraction. Such are the luxuries, but more realistically the negatives of working without marketplace pressures. It’s easy to be wrong when there’s no share price exposing your error.