This post is a direct response and rebuttal to the recent ‘Has the coronavirus panic cost us at least 10 million lives already?’ by Paul Fritjers. Paul’s post takes the current covid-19 crisis, and uses some haphazard multiplication to create an alarming narrative, muddying the policy waters on a critical issue.
Initially, I took issue with the back-of-the-envelope way Paul’s post calculates the human cost of an economic downturn. Of course, if you’re willing to make up numbers, you can win any argument, but that doesn’t make it true. To pick one example, the post says that a 25% drop in global share prices means an erasure of 25% of wealth for all humans, effectively costing “1.2 billion Indians a quarter of their wealth”. Except that most Indians would have almost no savings (wealth), fewer still would be exposed to global equity markets, and as for income, over 80% of Indians work in the informal sector. Another example: Paul’s post estimates that covid-19 will cost the global economy $50 trillion, based on simply extrapolating a drop in (previously bullish) equity markets. But stock valuations are not the same as output!
I can make up my own numbers too. Let’s say that if left to run, covid-19 infects half the world’s population (an underestimate, by all accounts) and has a mortality rate of 1% (also an underestimate based on existing countries). That’s 38.5 million deaths. Add to my model the fact that, actually, 5% of people will die if they aren’t hospitalised (according to the WHO) and there aren’t enough hospital beds. That’s almost 200 million deaths now (worse than Paul’s 10 million, for sure). Indeed, Australia will run out of hospital beds after only 0.2% of the population is infected with covid-19.
Paul’s post doesn’t argue that we should head straight for the pandemic cliff edge, but it presents sketchy figures without engaging in the complex trade-offs facing individuals and policymakers. It read like an elaborately constructed gotcha. A galaxy brain take searching for maximum provocativeness. And we need better than gotchas at the moment.
In reading Paul’s post, it is hard to know what response people should have instead. The post seems to advocate for minimal changes to behaviour and activity – criticises countries that “clamour for whatever seemed the safe thing” to manage and contain the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
What is the alternative to doing the safe thing? Should workers hold their nose and step over people collapsing in the street on their way to work? Should people calmly keep their discretionary spending up at the cinema and local cafe, while the hospital down the street shuts down, corridors full of bodies? An economy and a society won’t run like that for long.
Even if you could keep everyone’s chin up, behaving as usual, the health effects of letting a pandemic run will have a massive negative impact on the economy. Studies with robust quantitative models repeatedly and consistently find that epidemics cause recessions. There’s no version of this where the economy keeps chugging along. This model from Warwick McKibbin and Alexandra Sidorenko finds that a generic flu pandemic would cause trillions of dollars of loss from the effects of people getting sick (in other words: any economic downturn isn’t only because of panic and shutdown, it’s also because people are sick!). Letting the pandemic run will not avoid a recession, it will just give you a different recession. No one has the power to maintain the status quo.
There are a whole range of scenarios in between extreme panic and letting the pandemic run its course (but importantly, maintaining the status quo is not one of them!). We’ve seen other countries have put in strict protocols, aided by firm and consistent government communications, to contain and slow the virus. These protocols varied: temperature checks and contact tracing in Singapore, extensive testing of non-symptomatic people in South Korea, or closing schools and social isolation in Hong Kong. They got the virus under control. Many countries, mostly European and anglophone countries, let it run longer – arguably for economic reasons – in a game of chicken. And they seem to blink at the point where hospital capacity becomes overwhelmed. That’s what happened in Italy. And it happened in the UK today, as I write this from Oxford, where Boris Johnson announced a widespread shutdown and a London hospital ran out of ICU beds. In Paul’s post, the UK “take a wider view and be more balanced, and were roundly denounced for it, internally and externally, forcing them into greater panic”.
I disagree: the UK government was not bullied into changing their position. They did so voluntarily after being presented with new modelling that showed the catastrophic consequence of their “wider view”. In the US, California has just ordered any non-essential activities to cease (and requested the assistance of a Navy hospital ship) after they estimated they would have 25 million cases of covid-19. I would rather suffer the economic impact of a containment protocol and “the safe thing to do” over these messier shutdowns!
I definitely agree that mass panic and hoarding is bad. This seems to have hit Australia especially early and especially hard. It harms the people and businesses that are still trying to operate, and is most disruptive for the most vulnerable people. David Siglar looked at the prospect of government rationing in a previous post here. But as with the economic problem; taking no action and trying to preserve the status quo will still lead to mass panic. As Paul says in his post: “There is simply not the political power in anyone’s hands to react much different to the way we have.” You can’t just pretend everything is great, because once bodies pile up in the ICUs, you better believe people will still panic!
I also agree with Paul’s general point about needing to consider “statistical lives”. Too often, policy is made based on immediate and salient effects (the things we observe in front of us), rather than on the total overall impact. Indeed, if someone wants to write a provocative take about statistical lives, there’s an angle on generational inequality: the health burden of covid-19 falls predominantly on older people, but the burden of a recession will largely be borne by gen-X, millenials and younger. But to point out that an economic downturn will cause harm is not particularly provocative (except when framed as an argument against action on covid-19). And it is meaningless to criticise society’s current course of action for causing a downturn when every course of action right now will lead to a downturn.
What we need is calm, rational, and constructive debate around covid-19. That is how to prevent mass panic, and that is also how to make decisions that control and contain the virus. Putting out claims that our response to covid-19 will kill 10 million people doesn’t help anyone respond to the crisis affecting us today. And unless based on sound analysis, it doesn’t even help us understand the long-run impact of what is happening. But it does feed into the churn of extreme takes at both ends of the policy spectrum, fuelling a sense of alarm, anxiety and uncertainty.
There are no good choices. Our governments need to find the least-bad choices, and they need to exhibit control. The trajectory of this crisis – both pandemic and economic – depends so much on what individuals think and how they behave. Public debate should keep this end goal in mind, not search for the best gotcha.
Toby Phillips is a researcher and manager at the Blavatnik School of Government, Oxford University. He usually researches digital economies in developing countries, but is also working on a new project to investigate national policy responses to covid-19. He was previously in the Australian Public Service.