Having past events to look at doesn’t inherently make analysis of a sufficiently complex issue any more certain, it’s just another data point. The title was specifically used to draw an emotional response and it achieved that goal by at least one person. Concluding the argument with ‘there’s no precedent so we can’t say’ is lazy at best but the reality is the title was chosen for the exact reason you blame the audience for delivering on. Tons of information can be broken down and analyzed in a way that even aspects of it would have comparable historical events. I doubt the economists that did the research would devolve their efforts into ‘eh, no clue, never happened before, we’re really only able to have ideas about things that have historical patterns which is really inconvenient’.