You're more interested in talking about economic theory and beliefs than the reality of the situation, with real numbers, which is why you're happily ignoring the economic realities in Sweden. Pandemics cause historic jumps in the unemployment rate, lockdown or no lockdown, as Sweden have already demonstrated. Sweden's strategy is more about controlling the spread of the virus in a manageable way than it is about considering the second order economic effects in a way other governments hadn't. Countries imposed lockdowns both to suppress the virus and to be in a better position to kick start the economy after it recedes to a low level. Neither decision was purely one or the other. You want to blame the lockdown because you disagree with it on principle, but the data doesn't support your arguments.
For clarity, nowhere have I said that a disagree with lockdown, on principle or otherwise. I believe it was necessary in the circumstances, but also firmly believe and accept that it has (and will have) a significant economic impact. I believe that the effect of that should be factored into policy decisions going forward. I also did not say that I believe the way Sweden had dealt with this correctly, simply that at the moment, in my opinion we're not able to say.
As for the point in bold, I'm not. I'm doing the exact opposite and looking at the actual reality of running a business day to day.
I'm not going to get into a debate with you about the historic ramifications of pandemics, save to say that the last one on this scale was 100 years ago. The "
reality of the situation" is that the "
real numbers" that matter for an enormous number of businesses (with SME's accounting for a very significant percentage of employers in the UK) are
not estimates of general economic contraction but the amount of cash flow they have on a daily, weekly and monthly basis.
I am involved in running a business and our first worry during the pandemic has been the ability to meet our own liabilities, despite being confident of our long term future in our market. I also (in a professional capacity) advise numerous businesses across various sectors. The people who run these businesses are not yet worrying about the general economic downturn which may follow, but keeping the business trading long enough to try and have a shot at trading through it.
A business which supplies services on 60 day payment terms (often common place and an industry norm), cannot supply anyone without product. It cannot produce product without labour. After furlough will have to pay its staff for at least two months before any money comes in. if it hasn't traded for months and it has no cash to do so, it's in trouble. It may also not be able to pay rent, following which the Landlord has the right to simply change the locks on the office. Liquidation is then an inevitability for that business. This is a problem being faced by many companies at this stage. Directors of companies have to act prudently to avoid personal liability and a lot are not prepared to borrow, or put their house on the line in times of uncertainty.
You are absolutely right to suggest that in the long term a general economic dip may well cause businesses to close their doors regardless of a lock down but businesses can, and often do trade through difficult times. However, the immediate problem of cash flow is what will kill a lot of the business that go under, even though they were profitable before and for a lot of business that is a direct impact of not being able to trade for three months.
You know what, I'm not going to argue with you. You have your views and that's fair enough.