At the heart of responses to COVID-19 is a terrible trade-off between maximizing social distancing measures to suppress the disease and the need to maintain some sense of normal economic activity.
Extreme social distancing can reduce the number of infections and deaths by reducing the person-to-person interactions necessary for the transmission of the disease, but only an extremely high economic cost.
Business-as-usual, with limited interventions such as handwashing and self-isolation, can keep food, essential services and the rest of the economy going, but only at the cost of a large number of infections and deaths.
First in China, and now around the rest of the world, policymakers have been confronted with the same appalling trade-off, from which there are no good outcomes, only choices between lesser evils.
China’s experience with locking down Hubei Province and implementing a prolonged holiday from normal business seems to show extreme social distancing can bring an epidemic under control.
However, the experience suggests economic costs are high, with the supply chain pushed close to breakdown, and it could only be maintained for a short period before pressure to restart the economy became overwhelming.
At the other extreme, Italy’s early experience suggests uncontrolled transmission overwhelmed the healthcare system leading to a surge in deaths, and forced the government to introduce a nationwide lockdown to arrest the rising death toll.
As the epidemic has spread around the world and infected more people, governments have struggled to identify a strategy that is politically, medically and economically sustainable, with policy oscillating as costs increase in various dimensions.
In Britain, the government’s initial strategy was to mitigate transmission through the population, flattening the peak and maintaining hospitalization and intensive care rates within system limits.
The objective was to manage the case rate until the epidemic burnt itself out naturally, when enough of the population had been exposed that herd immunity had been achieved.
Policymakers abruptly reversed course when new epidemic modeling suggested the mitigation strategy would still overwhelm the capacity of the healthcare system and lead to 250,000 or more deaths.
So, the most recent policy focuses on extreme social distancing with the objective of suppressing the epidemic rather than simply mitigating it.
The switch was prompted by epidemic modeling from Imperial College London (“Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions to reduce COVID19 mortality and healthcare demand,” March 16).
Yet as the authors of the study note, “suppression, while successful to date in China and South Korea, carries with it enormous social and economic costs.”
Such costs might be feasible in the very short term for a few weeks or a month, but become much more significant if extreme social distancing measures have to be maintained for longer periods.
In the Imperial College study, the authors considered social distancing the entire population combined with case isolation and household quarantine and possibly school/university closure for five months.
However, the disease risks flaring up again once controls are relaxed. The authors acknowledge intensive restrictions on social contact might have to be repeatedly reintroduced for an 18-month period.
Extreme social distancing measures might need to be in place two-thirds of the time until near the end of 2021, until either herd immunity has been achieved naturally or a vaccine is available.
In most major economies, including Britain, the US, China and the EU, government strategy has now shifted to suppression.
Yet the enormous economic costs are being reflected in the sharp drop in equity market valuations and other risk assets.
Suppression has brought much of the passenger aviation, tourism, public transportation, retail, restaurant, entertainment, personal services and other industries to a near complete halt.
Suppression also threatens the manufacturing and distribution systems, and their ability to keep moving food and other items to consumers.
The sudden stoppage threatens sales, wages, rent and tax payments, with a cascade effect that would spread even to those parts of the economy not subject to formal shutdown.
It has no parallel since World War II, except perhaps for the few days in the immediate aftermath of the attacks on the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.
In response, monetary policymakers have cut interest rates to zero, injected large volumes of liquidity, and promised forbearance on debts and other liabilities.
On the fiscal side, governments have pledged large tax cuts and/or increases in public spending, including transfer payments to individuals and businesses, to counter the economic crisis.
So far, most monetary and fiscal measures have done little to restore confidence, with equity prices and other risk assets continuing to slide amid a sustained flight to safety.
Yet monetary and fiscal stimulus can do little to sustain or revive business activity that has been shut down for non-economic reasons.
At best, policymakers can socialize losses, spreading concentrated losses suffered by the worst affected businesses and individuals and sharing them more widely across society.
Interest rate cuts spread losses among the most heavily indebted borrowers to savers. Transfer payments spread losses from the worst affected businesses and individuals to taxpayers as a whole.
Loss-sharing is a conventional response for societies facing catastrophic costs, normally through commercial insurance in the first instance but ultimately through the fiscal and monetary systems.
However, loss sharing cannot make the costs go away. Shutting down large parts of the economy for much of the next 18 months would have enormous costs, which is weighing heavily on financial markets.
In that sense, the fall in equity values and oil prices is entirely rational, reflecting the assumption business activity would be severely reduced for at least five months and perhaps as much as two years.
As the full economic costs of suppression come into focus, it is possible policymakers could refine strategy further, leading to a blended strategy between suppression and mitigation, social distancing and business as usual.
In most cases, when confronted with an uncomfortable trade-off, decisionmakers ultimately choose a middle course, rather than one of the extremes.
As they weigh up health and economic costs, policymakers might ultimately move to a strategy that mixes elements of suppression and mitigation, that tries to limit transmission and deaths, while re-opening parts of the economy to minimize the financial and social fallout.
John Kemp is a Reuters market analyst. The views expressed are his own.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers
Gogoro Inc was once a rising star and a would-be unicorn in the years prior to its debut on the NASDAQ in 2022, as its environmentally friendly technology and stylish design attracted local young people. The electric scooter and battery swapping services provider is bracing for a major personnel shakeup following the abrupt resignation on Friday of founding chairman Horace Luke (陸學森) as chief executive officer. Luke’s departure indicates that Gogoro is sinking into the trough of unicorn disillusionment, with the company grappling with poor financial performance amid a slowdown in demand at home and setbacks in overseas expansions. About 95