It’s entirely true that the costs of some things - say, socialism - can be vastly higher than the benefits, equally the benefits - say of a free market economy - can wildly outweigh the costs. But it is still true that there are costs, as well as benefits, to everything:

More than 800 lives may have been saved across Europe thanks to better air quality in the first phase of Covid lockdowns, research suggests.

Measures brought in to stem the rise in infections resulted in far fewer cars and lorries on roads, which had the biggest impact on reducing deaths, according to the study led by experts from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM).

That’s a pretty small benefit for having closed down the economy. Also, for having however many tens of thousands die for lack of cancer and other medical treatments available in normal times. But it is still a benefit, no doubt about that.

It is though the net of the costs and benefits that should drive decision making. Any particular summation of the figures to arrive at that balance can be read either way. Clearly, closing down Europe to save 800 lives wasn’t worth it. Quite apart from anything else the nett figure wasn’t to save lives anyway.

But we can and should also read this the other way around. OK, so it’s possible to save 800 lives by cleaning up the city air. Should we? Well, look at the effort - which is also another way of saying the other costs - needed to do so. Umm, no, it isn’t, is it? For we kill more by closing everything down than are saved by closing everything down.

For there are indeed costs and benefits to everything.