One of the great dilemmas that the COVID-19 pandemic has presented us with is the ethical choice between health and the economy.
We have gone through two phases, from the beginning of the pandemic to today.
In the first phase, starting in January 2020, news arrived of a particularly violent and highly contagious virus, likely first isolated in China, in the now infamous city of Wuhan. Later in February, politicians and virologists throughout the West believed the virus would be contained and that its spread in the West would be extremely difficult and controlled. In March, with the first outbreaks, particularly in Lombardy, the problem became apparent in all its tragedy: fear of the virus began, and decrees aimed at containing the contagion were issued.
In the second phase, the entire nation enters a climate of terror, with the first lockdown: feelings of unity and sharing the problem, a shared fight against the virus, solidarity.
The first economic problems related to commercial closures are emerging, and so-called "state relief" measures are being implemented. However, they do not solve the problem of suspended activities, as they are not provided in sufficient quantities to allow businesses to weather the crisis caused by the closures.
Psychological and social health
The Italian economy, like that of all European countries, is experiencing an inevitable crisis due to the forced shutdown, resulting in a collapse in demand, and the disruption of production, trade, and small and medium-sized businesses.
Psychological and social health have suffered a severe blow due to the impossibility of having a series of social contacts, starting with educational and recreational environments for young people, but also, predominantly, the need for families to live together in often inadequate spaces, for months at a time, unable to carry out the normal daily activities to which we are accustomed, in a forced coexistence 24 hours a day.
In this situation, the most frequent question is: “promote public health or the economy”?
According to Neha Deopa and Piergiuseppe Fortunato, there is no dilemma, since "the data, contrary to the hypothesis of a trade-off between economic and health objectives, show a clear negative correlation between the estimates of GDP variation and those of excess mortality. The countries experiencing the most serious economic recessions – such as Spain, Italy and the United Kingdom – are also among the countries with the highest excess mortality. And the opposite is also true: the countries in which the economic impact has been relatively modest – such as Austria, Denmark and Germany – have also managed to keep mortality under control. Therefore, there would appear to be a certain complementarity between health and economy " [1].
This observation brings us back to the need to analyze the tools implemented so far by the government and the regions: first and foremost, the total lockdown, a tool that has proven partially effective in containing the spread of the pandemic from a health perspective, at least in the initial phase; the division of regions and provinces into "risk zones" (yellow, orange, red), a tool adopted to allow for economic recovery in areas where the infection rate was less worrying; and mass vaccination, aimed at starting the journey toward herd immunity and the long-awaited end to the emergency.
The results are slow in coming
Well, more than a year after these measures began, implemented at obviously different times, results in Italy are slow to arrive . Why?
Let's look at the reality: by closing many non-essential businesses, the aim is to avoid gatherings and thus the risk of contagion. However, people are allowed to visit relatives and friends, which effectively facilitates the transmission of the virus under these conditions. At the same time, a number of businesses are prevented from reopening, resulting in damage to both health and the economy!
Health is not antithetical to the economy
If it is true, as the data shows us, that health cannot be antithetical to the economy, then we must ask ourselves what possible solutions exist.
One response could be the reopening of businesses, which does not increase risk if accompanied by strict distancing and health safety rules and, at the same time, tighter and more frequent checks by all law enforcement agencies.
This solution would allow for a series of benefits:
- the possibility of restarting all the related sectors of the local economy;
- to promote an improvement in the social, psychological health, and living conditions of young people and families, who have currently been deprived for more than a year;
- prevent "illegal services" by those businesses that continue their activities at home, closed in their shops, without any control whatsoever;
- support through economic compensation measures that can be useful as a supplement, unlike what happens where they are intended to replace income but, unfortunately, are insufficient.
To reopen: an economic restart
The reopening, however, should not lead to a lowering of guard with respect to other safety aspects: effectively controlled entry, remote learning and work, in whatever ways and forms possible, mass vaccination, and public and institutional attention to safety measures.
Therefore, focusing solely on measures to mitigate the health emergency risks being a flawed strategy, even though these undoubtedly serve to ensure that the recovery can come as close to the pre-Covid scenario as possible. The true breakthrough will be achieved by promoting an economic restart that doesn't compromise health: this isn't impossible, but it requires a clear commitment from all stakeholders.
Maurizio Tramontano
[1] https://www.lavoce.info/archives/71294/economia-o-salute-il-dilemma-che-non-ce/
