Abstract

This paper presents an efficiency assessment of social distancing as an internationally adopted measure to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. The simple framework adopted for the assessment accounts for two kinds of costs that a society may bear in a pandemic. The first is welfare loss due to infection and its consequences, and the second is welfare loss resulting from a slowdown in economic transactions. We call the first infection costs, and the second economic costs, for convenience in the paper. Efficient social distancing should minimize the sum of these costs. Infection costs are likely to decrease with social distancing at a decreasing rate as intensified social distancing eases pressure on scarce resources for intensive care. Economic costs on the other hand are likely to increase at an increasing rate as extreme slowdown in economic life may entail job losses and business failures. The resulting U-shaped total costs curve implies parity between infection costs and economic costs as a necessary condition for efficiency. In a simplified implementation of the framework, we approximate infection costs by the value of (statistical) lives lost, and economic costs by the gap between the actual gross domestic product (GDP) in 2020 and the potential GDP as predicted by the within-country growth trend during the preceding decade. The results for 158 countries suggest that the global community perhaps reacted with overly strict social distancing measures. The results for the subgroup of high-income countries, however, suggest that these countries were more successful in maintaining the parity between infection and economic costs.

Highlights

  • The COVID-19 pandemic has claimed more than 5.2 million lives as of the end of November 2021

  • We attempt a simplified operationalization by approximating infection costs by of infection economic costs not gap an easy task [9]. This the Rigorous value of measurement lives lost, andand economic costs byisthe between theInactual paper, we attempt a simplified operationalization by approximating infection costs by the gross domestic product (GDP) in 2020 and the potential GDP as predicted by the withinvalue of lives lost, and economic costs by the gap between the actual gross country growth trend during the preceding decade

  • The countries theinfection line suffered costseconomic higher than economic costs. Had they be stricter in social distancing, they should have been able to cope with the pandemic with been able to be stricter in social distancing, they should have been able to cope with the lower total with costs.lower

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has claimed more than 5.2 million lives as of the end of November 2021. Economic costs on the other hand are likely to increase distancing may save a lot of lives, whereas public health benefits from further restrictions at an increasing rate as the extreme slowdown in economic life entails job losses and in mobility are likely to be smaller. This the Rigorous value of measurement (statistical) lives lost, andand economic costs byisthe between theInactual paper, we attempt a simplified operationalization by approximating infection costs by the gross domestic product (GDP) in 2020 and the potential GDP as predicted by the withinvalue of (statistical) lives lost, and economic costs by the gap between the actual gross country growth trend during the preceding decade These approximations are both likely domestic product in 2020 potential. The value of the ratio over 1 means that infection costs outweigh economic costs, and that social distancing is insufficient in view of efficiency.

Estimation of Infection Costs and Economic Costs
Results
In of theFigure framework of Figure
Discussion and Concluding
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call