It was also an unwanted, real-time experiment for the economic and social impacts of a modern infectious disease, as well as a test-bed for policy responses from governments.
COVID-19 is not the first global pandemic to hit humanity and it is unlikely to be the last. To better understand the economic consequences of infectious diseases, a team of researchers surveyed recent insights into the economic and policy implications of modern infectious diseases.
“Our survey is broader and more general than previous studies on this topic, as it ties in the literature on other important infectious diseases such as HIV, malaria, tuberculosis, and influenza. We captured a large chunk of the emerging literature on COVID-19 from the early 20th century up until August 2020, distilling insights that generalize beyond the context of (early) COVID-19,” explains IIASA Economic Frontiers Program Director, Michael Kuhn, who was one of the study authors.
The survey revealed distinct channels of disease impacts relating to very specific disease typologies. Unknown and fast-moving diseases such as COVID-19 have fast, hard-hitting impacts in terms of consumption losses or lost labor supply.
While endemic diseases like HIV/AIDs, malaria, or tuberculosis led to longer-term behavioral and societal responses such as shorter-term prospects and the stifling of human capital investments.
It is important to keep track of long-term impacts as driven by longer-term changes in the incentives to accumulate human capital in terms of social cohesion.
In addition, the huge role of heterogeneity in various dimensions plays a crucial role in pandemic outcomes, as they are typically very dependent on social status, which means that there are large distributional effects of pandemics within and across countries.
This also emphasizes the importance of realizing that there can be no one-size-fits-all policy to mitigate the impacts of a pandemic such as the implementation of lockdowns, for instance, is much less appropriate in poor countries and/or for precarious communities.
The results further indicate that it is crucial for implemented policies aimed at coordinating or focusing individual efforts during the pandemic to be complementary rather than substitutes for “normal” policies.
As a consequence, expectations and focal points matter, which in turn calls for consistent policies and policy communication, as well as coordination between policymakers. This is particularly important in international pandemic settings where countries are linked both economically and epidemiologically.
The choice between weighing the loss of lives against the loss of livelihoods cannot be delegated to scientists but has to be decided based on a transparent, evidence-based, ethics-guided, and inclusive social debate on which to base policies.
Misunderstanding or misrepresentation of this generates dangerous misperceptions and may harm trust in institutions and social capital in the long run.
The avoidance of such trade-offs implies a huge value concerning prevention and pandemic preparedness through investments in health care systems, pandemic monitoring and early warning systems, international support networks, and multi-purpose and ready-to-adapt pharmaceuticals (i.e., vaccines).
In addition, the continued education of the population regarding modern infectious diseases and their impacts plays a crucial role in preparedness for future pandemics.
Source: Medindia
