(We should absolutely end lockdowns since they have no empirically demonstrated efficacy versus other alternative policies like centralized quarantining and universal mask requirements)
Gray Kimbrough @graykimbrough
14 Apr 2020
I understand why some economists argue that no serious economist is saying we should end lockdowns now. But here is James Bullard, who holds a PhD in economics and is the president of the St. Louis Fed, freely opining on how "inefficient" and costly it is:
24
49
31
170
The reason we should not have lockdowns is not because their economic costs are too large but because they are not actually very good at reducing the number of fatalities.
2
11
66
Cancel school. Restrict large assemblies. Require masks in public. Have excessively generous UI. Test extensively. Trace aggressively. Quarantine centrally. But maybe don’t fine people for reading a book on the park like DC is doing.
20
22
1
184
Replying to @lymanstoneky
Some of these good policies (test, trace, and central quarantine, which I agree we should do) seem possible in the US only once we have substantially more testing capacity than we appear to have today.

Apr 14, 2020 · 5:28 PM UTC

2
1
Replying to @davidbaron @lymanstoneky
#GroupTesting may be an option. guaana.com/challenge/3xvdZQt… #Dorfman
Replying to @davidbaron @lymanstoneky
#hastestingflatlined ?
chris hofmann @chofmann
14 Apr 2020
Replying to @chofmann @tlowdon @COVID19Tracking @AlistairHaimes @justin_hart @aginnt @AlexBerenson @NikolovScience @JRoy777
Just heard a rpt suggesting by sept. we might have only 4M tests/day US capacity & speculated that it would not be enough for some scenarios. covidtracking data suggests that we have flat lined at 150k capacity for now. Also understand the NY get most of the tests currently