As the COVID-19 pandemic shuts down the world’s economies, stock markets plummet and unemployment rises, policymakers will be forced to figure out how to contain the outbreak while preventing financial and economic collapse. Most economic proposals in developed countries focus on cash payments to people, deferred tax payments and business bailouts.
However, biomedicine is critical to saving the economy, and of the three major biomedical channels now in play, the least important medically is the one that could impede an economic Armageddon.
It is a test to check whether a person has had, recovered from and thus become immune to COVID-19. Scientists say that low-symptom and symptomless cases exceed the symptomatic. When these asymptomatic people are over the infection, they could go to work — they will not infect those with whom they come into contact. But we need to know who they are.
Imagine that we could test the low-symptom and no-symptom cases for immunity today. This is not the widely discussed (and still not widely available) test for the illness itself. That test shows whether the virus is in one’s system, not whether it came, went and conferred immunity. Testing those who have been exposed, recovered and are healthy could allow them to return to work and reopen businesses and institutions.
Initial public discussion of immunity testing — which is sparse — has focused on how understanding COVID-19 immunity could lead to a vaccine or antiviral to treat the sick, and could tell us how widely the virus has spread.
However, a major and immediate economic use of an immunity test is that it can be deployed before we have a cure or a treatment. Initial research suggests that, as with other viral diseases, recovery from COVID-19 does indeed lead to post-illness immunity. This still needs to be fully confirmed — and, equally important, confirmed to be long-lasting. Such testing is now possible and, with a push, could be widely available.
That push could be well worth the effort, especially if the virus spreads. The public health focus is on developing therapeutic drugs and a vaccine as soon as possible.
However, no widely available vaccine is expected to be available for 12 to 18 months — far longer than the world’s economies can stay shut down.
Likewise, antivirals to treat the disease will save lives and must be a priority, but the strength of their impact on the economy is uncertain. People will still get sick. Moreover, effective antivirals are expected to come in months, maybe many months, not weeks. The economy cannot wait that long.
Consider how an immunity test could be used today. My wife and I had a cold for a day last week: a light, dry cough and a little congestion. Was it a mild form of COVID-19, which our immune systems fought off without serious symptoms? Probably not, but maybe it was — and maybe we are now immune. If an immunity test were available, we would check, and if we were immune, we would go out and back to the office. However, because we do not know, we are still staying home.
I am not an epidemiologist, although an epidemiologist at my university has raised similar possibilities. Much about COVID-19 is uncertain in public discourse and, so it seems, in experts’ knowledge. For example, the economic value of the immunity test depends on how many people get the virus without being symptomatic and on the overall level of infection in the coming months, neither of which we know now with any precision.
An immunity test would have to be easy to use, because it is the asymptomatic who would have to use it. Presumably, some of the first users would be businesses that would have to close unless they could be staffed with a handful of immune employees.
Perversely, the worse the public-health situation is, the higher the economic value of the immunity test. If more people are infected, the economy is more disrupted, and the number of symptomless patients who need not stay home rises as well.
That might be a path to a low-casualty means of minimizing the pandemic’s economic: those who have recovered resume their normal routine. The numbers will increase sharply, according to some projections. The problem is finding out who they are.
An immunity test could tell us who does not need to be taken out of economic circulation, and using it well could start our economic recovery as early as next month — or impede a further decline. And if the uncertainties are overcome, it could proceed while the more complete biomedical efforts — to develop antivirals and a vaccine — percolate toward a solution in laboratories around the world.
Mark Roe is a professor at Harvard Law School. He is the author of studies of the impact of politics on corporate organization and corporate governance in the US and around the world.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS