Economics
This factor seems to divide into two questions:What was the economic cost of the response to the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic and what would it have been if the civil leaders had taken the "do nothing" option?
The COVID-19 recession is an economic recession happening across the world economy in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.Global stock markets experienced their worst crash since 1987, and in the first three months of 2020 the G20 economies fell 3.4% year-on-year. Between April and June 2020, the International Labour Organization estimated that an equivalent of 400 million full-time jobs were lost across the world, and income earned by workers globally fell 10 percent in the first nine months of 2020, equivalent to a loss of over US$3.5 trillion. (Source: Wikipedia)
So, as it was there was a recession linked with the Pandemic. Would it have been worse or better?
So if you did nothing and 20% of the population was off sick over 2 years and given the limited number of general and ICU hospital beds, the healthcare system would collapse and there would be a significant impact economically. I would guess the pandemic would last about the same time as the 1918 pandemic (2y) and the recovery would take probably 2 years - so 4 years of impact.
Canada's economy dipped ... but I'm not certain how much.
I'm not an economist, but took a course at University - so take my estimates for what they are ...
But, here's some quick references that I scanned (read quickly):
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0863-y
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/are-we-overreacting-to-the-coronavirus-lets-do-the-math-2020-04-19
https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/economic-cost-coronavirus-recession-covid-deaths
Geopolitical
China and Russia moved quickly on restrictions and / or vaccinations.
The Chinese experience shows the advantage of their system. No worrying about the next election, just make decisions and give orders.
If the US took a 'do nothing' approach, they would be at an economic disadvantage for (I believe) at least 5 years compared with China and to a lesser extent Russia. The timeframe is based on how long it took the 1918 Pandemic to proceed through its lifecycle (2 years), the advances that the other economies would make while the US was 'paused' and the time it would take to catch-up to the front-runners.
That would not be a desirable state of affairs.
Moral
This one gives me trouble as I have difficulty believing that just because a disease impacts the elderly and infirm, that someone can whisper the words 'common-good' and their survival is counted as naught. I think that leaders have a duty towards all the people under their leadership.
Does the damage done to the un-infected and young balance out the efforts to protect the old.
That is a fallacy because it ignores that fact that the disease affects all segments of the population without discrimination. Pathogens are typically equal opportunity employers of human bodies to reproduce.
The side effect is that they kill some of their hosts.
Looking at the stats in Canada - we see the impacts a broader spectrum of people.
 |
| Cases in Canada |
 |
| Hospitalizations |
 |
| ICU Admissions |
 |
| Deaths |
The key element here is that we don't know who is going to go to the hospital, ICU and die. If you could determine that - maybe you could make a case for sheltering those individuals. But that is impossible. There are too many factors that determine who lives and who dies etc. In other words, only God knows.
So, if a pathogen is allowed to run free, it
overwhelms the healthcare systems - as started to happen in Manitoba
when they had to transport covid patients out of the province. Some of whom died ...
This really comes down to what is common-good and what is the obligations of the civil leaders in this situation?
Taking the common-good (which it turns out is a hard to define term) - if you allow COVID-19 to run amok without intervention through the population, is it more or less damaging than the case with interventions?
Basically, if the healthcare system is overwhelmed, people die. Society as a whole is likewise impacted. Society is a network not an island and if the pathogen were allowed to move unfettered through society it will cause a damage to the common-good as well.
The civil leaders have an obligation to create the circumstances in which people can live out their lives to attain their final end. This include the protection of those lives.
If they did nothing, then they would commit a sin of omission and dereliction of duty since they are not just in a position of authority to help the young and strong, but also the old and weak.
Conclusion
At a tactical moral level, I think it was justified. Also, looking strategically, I think that the Geo-political and Economic factors are also in favour of the interventions.
The exact methods used is a detail that needs to be examined. For example - closing churches but leaving bars open is obviously not licit.
But that is a topic for later ... if I have time or inclination.
P^3
Comments
Post a Comment