Score contribution per author:
α: calibrated so average coauthorship-adjusted count equals average raw count
This article 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% 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 trade‐off between economic and health objectives may be misguided.