Abstract
This paper develops a quantitative heterogeneous agent–life cycle–epidemiological model that is used to study the aggregate and distributional consequences of COVID‐19 and mitigation policies. First, a stay‐at‐home subsidy is preferred to a lockdown because it reduces deaths by more and output by less. Second, Pareto‐improving policies can reduce deaths by nearly 45 percent without any reduction in output relative to no public mitigation. Finally, it is possible to simultaneously improve public health and economic outcomes, suggesting that debates regarding a tradeoff between economic and health objectives may be misguided.
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved