A recent study conducted by economists from the Federal Reserve and the MIT Sloan School of Management sought to evaluate the economic implications of different responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. The researchers analyzed whether implementing lockdowns—which inherently disrupt economic activities on both the supply and demand sides—was more beneficial than allowing the virus to spread while attempting to maintain some level of economic activity. The assumption was that the long-term damage from a total economic shutdown could be more severe than the pandemic itself.
Using sophisticated mathematical models, the authors examined data from various U.S. cities during the 1918 influenza pandemic. Their findings indicated that cities that adopted early and stringent non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) experienced quicker and more robust economic recoveries. NPIs include measures like frequent handwashing, sheltering in place, isolating cases, closing schools and public venues, and banning large gatherings.
Cities that acted swiftly during the 1918 flu faced “significant economic costs” along with fatalities. Those that implemented NPIs just ten days sooner saw a 5% increase in manufacturing jobs post-pandemic, while extending NPIs for an additional 50 days resulted in a 6.5% increase. The paper’s conclusion was unmistakably clear, as highlighted in its title: “Pandemics Depress the Economy, Public Health Interventions Do Not: Evidence from the 1918 Flu.”
A survey by the IGM Forum at the University of Chicago revealed that 80% of economists believe that ending strict lockdowns could ultimately harm our economy in the long term. Meanwhile, 93% advocate for aggressive government funding for COVID-19 testing, treatment, and the production of medical supplies and vaccines.
On the other hand, conservative media outlets express concerns that prolonged lockdowns can lead to feelings of hopelessness for those confined at home, often without an income. This concern is valid, as studies have linked economic downturns to spikes in suicide rates. However, newer research has challenged this perspective.
While it’s reasonable to address mental health and economic stability, we must question whether the approach to slowing the spread of COVID-19 is indeed an either/or scenario. The dialogue surrounding our COVID-19 response may be misdirected. The extreme political polarization in the U.S. has caused nuanced discussions to be overlooked. This should not be treated as a black-and-white issue.
The previously mentioned study, although thorough, has limitations that the authors acknowledge. We are not in 1918, and COVID-19 is not merely a variant of the flu. We possess advanced technology and the ability to share information far more effectively than in the past. Conversely, those advocating for relaxing NPIs often neglect the broader economic consequences of an uncontrolled pandemic, along with its toll on mental health in a scenario where healthcare systems are overwhelmed and personal losses mount. Are we really willing to trade potential suicides for COVID-19 fatalities?
There is a viable alternative. The focus must shift to testing, which is likely the linchpin for saving both lives and the economy. Emily Rivers, a researcher at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, remarked, “Keeping everyone at home is a blunt tool. It’s what you resort to when you have no other options.” Testing is the crucial strategy that allows for targeted approaches.
Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute, emphasizes the need for mass testing, starting with individuals who have been in contact with confirmed cases and then expanding to those with mild symptoms, followed by random population testing to identify asymptomatic carriers.
An opinion piece in The New York Times by Nobel laureate Paul Tanner and economist Dr. Lisa Melrose advocates for a “targeted approach” that mitigates virus spread while allowing most individuals to return to their daily lives—again, highlighting the importance of testing.
Countries like South Korea, Vietnam, and Germany have implemented comprehensive testing measures along with strict containment strategies, which have proven effective. The U.S. government, however, currently does not recommend widespread testing for the general population. Vice President Mark Rivers stated, “If you’re not exhibiting symptoms, testing isn’t necessary.” This aligns with the current CDC guidelines that leave testing decisions to state and local health departments.
To regain economic stability, we must significantly ramp up testing efforts. Identifying COVID-19 cases and their contacts is essential for implementing quarantines. Additionally, serological tests, which detect COVID-19 antibodies, can help determine who has immunity, potentially allowing portions of the population to return to work safely.
The U.K. has ordered millions of serological tests, and Germany is considering using them to issue immunity certificates to those who have recovered from COVID-19.
Unfortunately, the situation surrounding testing in the U.S. is chaotic. The administration has not been transparent about the severe test shortages we face, whether for the virus or for antibodies. Although the FDA is funding the development of tests, the U.S. remains lagging behind other nations regarding testing rates.
The problems with testing are evident in local communities. In a Florida COVID-19 support group, many symptomatic individuals report difficulties accessing tests. With some private facilities offering costly drive-through testing—often only discovered through word of mouth—people are left frustrated and confused.
Addressing this pandemic should not be a matter of choosing between lockdowns or no restrictions. A nation as capable as the U.S. should be on par with other countries in implementing widespread testing. This would enable tracking of COVID-19 spread and allow areas with contained outbreaks to reopen, thus revitalizing the economy. Furthermore, retroactive serological testing could identify immune individuals who could safely return to work, even in areas where the virus persists.
We need to move beyond the debate over lockdowns and instead demand that our government prioritize extensive testing so that we can safely return to our jobs and lives.
Summary
The response to COVID-19 should not be viewed as a binary choice between strict lockdowns and complete economic freedom. A comprehensive approach that focuses on widespread testing could allow for a safer return to normalcy while mitigating the economic fallout. By learning from past pandemics and adopting effective strategies already proven in other countries, we can navigate this crisis without sacrificing public health or economic stability.