"Saving lives versus saving money" comparisons confuse ends with means. The end of saving the economy is not to have more money. The end is to have resources necessary to preserve the lives and health of countless human beings.
What is the number of deaths due to disease which justifies the total abandonment of the rule of law and basic human freedoms? Sixty thousand? One hundred thousand? Three hundred thousand? Supporters of the current police state ought to pin down a number for us at which all rights are forfeit.
It is tempting to assume both money supply inflation and price inflation will come soon as the central banks pump new money. But if banks aren't lending because the economy is in disarray, the money supply may actually shrink, and prices may even fall.
Entrepreneurs can offer new ways of serving established markets, but large institutions will keep with what has worked in the past so long as it just continues to work in the present. Radical change happens only in an emergency. For the British university that time has now arrived.
Egalitarians think that equality has intrinsic value: they advocate it for its own sake, not just to forestall bad consequences. But why is a situation in which some in it have been made better off, and none worse off, worse than one of equality?