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
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past