COVID or the economy – the real issue (Part 1)
With the war in Ukraine and the resulting political upheaval taking centre-stage, it is possible that covid may lose some of its deserved attention. But there are broader aspects relating to such pandemics that need to be discussed before the issue is put aside.
We seem to be in a waning phase of the pandemic, and the state and federal governments have decided to lift restrictions and open borders, much to the relief of many. This (ostensible) down-turn in omicron numbers was predicted by the S. African experience, which had indicated a peaking behaviour for omicron as early as mid-December last year.
It is important to note that in all probability, the decline in numbers had in no way been caused by decisions made by the authorities. One could reasonably assert that they were pre-destined by the nature of omicron itself. The decline happened despite the decisions made by the Eastern states of the country.
- Need for sound decisions
If one looks closely at these decisions, one finds that they were contradictory in nature. The original actions of lockdowns and restricted movements were taken to stop the spread of covid. The new decisions currently being made to lift restrictions and open borders are being made to get the economy started again and to see workers returning to work.
But these actions will undo the effects of the original decisions. Thus covid will be free to spread again. Such decisions cannot therefore do much in the way of stopping covid. Notwithstanding, the crucial role of decision-makers in deciding the future path of events cannot be under-estimated. One must however ascertain that these decisions are sound and progressive.
- A model for decision-making
Among the criteria for sound decisions are that they must be
- Rational and backed by good science and data
- Independent and motivated by the welfare and wellbeing of the population only.
To proceed further, we need to see how we arrive at our decisions. One way of approaching this problem is to put forward a model of how people make decisions. The following is a model which proposes the various ways people make decisions, placed in a ranking order:
This six-level model of decision-making states that decisions can be
- Emotional decisions ( where decision-makers let feelings decide, are reactive to the situation, even make irrational decisions due to the pressure and urgency)
- Customary decisions (decisions based on the norm and tradition rather than reason)
- Obey the boss decisions (decisionsdriven by fear of authority and insecurity (e.g. of losing jobs and displeasing authority – e.g. your employer or the government)
- Logical decisions (that arrive at the final answer via a strictly logical procedure only )
- Rational decisions (formulated through the use logic, but that consider the context and prevailing circumstances)
- Wise decisions (that combine reasoned approach with history and human experience).
Most people most of the time will make decisions that are a mixture of these types. Sometimes there are compelling reasons why one method is preferred over the other.
- Assumptions of the model
Often, the situation under investigation is quite complex, and it is extremely difficult to deal with all the variables. A simplifying procedure is to assume that some variables whose values are being sought are already known.
All models involving complex issues have to be based on certain assumptions.
The above model assumes that the decision-makers are
- acting rationally and totally in the interests of the public – no personal motivations or interests are involved (decisions are fair and equitable).
- free to make decisions of their own choice, and not compelled (forced or pressurised) to make them, or obligated to make them according to the wishes of others.
- Are our leaders free?
It goes without saying that we expect our leaders (at all social, institutional and governance levels) to make wise decisions. These are decisions that are good for our institutions, society and the country as a whole. In the present case, the decisions to be made are how to get rid of covid and keep the economy going. Can we be absolutely confident that our leaders will make sound decisions?
Looking at our working model, we can be confident that we have leaders that can make rational (and even wise) decisions. But do the assumptions apply to them as well? To see it in the light of the current context, we note that federal elections are fast approaching in Australia. And the thought that will be first and foremost in the minds of the political parties will be how to keep the voters happy. And given the socio-economic impacts of covid, what a large portion of the voters will be looking forward to is employment and basic freedom of motion.
The effect of “dark money” also needs to be considered. These are large donations made by un-named donors to the political parties. The effect this has on the decisions and policies the receiving parties make is well-documented (see e.g. “Big Deal” – a two episode program on ABC TV presented by Christiaan Van Vuuren in October 2021; “Matter of Integrity – a 7.30 Report on the 8th of February on the need to establish an Integrity Commission; the National Press Club presentation by Simon Holmes a Court on the 15th of this month on the work of Climate 200 on balancing the field for independent candidates for the oncoming Federal elections.).
There are plenty of grounds to believe that the impartiality and independence of leaders who receive such funding in making good political decisions is a matter for examination and debate.
5. Unanswered questions
There was much relief on the part of commercial and industrial sectors, and especially the tourism industry, when the international borders re-opened a few days ago. There was assurance that businesses would go back to normal, and workers would be able to return to work. There was happiness and joy at family re-unions. All good news. But one must keep in mind that this does not do anything towards ensuring that covid is kept under control. One must still keep a wary eye on the covid numbers.
There are still some unanswered questions on the science of covid before we can be sure all is well. Two such questions are
i) how many of the deaths since December have been due to Delta? Why are there no numbers being released?
ii) How severe is omicron? Is there a conspiracy to hide its true nature?
If, as many have asserted, omicron really is much milder than Delta, than this provides a mechanism for dealing with the present dilemma about how to treat the open-borders situation. For it will confirm that we do not have to take restrictive actions such as lockdowns, isolation of first contacts, against omicron (as long as we can ascertain that no Delta slips in), and give us some assurance that any surge in covid numbers (and related deaths) in the following weeks will not be severe.
6. Life after covid
The general expectation is that the pandemic will run its course soon and the world will return to a sustainable normalcy. It is interesting to ask what the attitude of the people and the authorities will be to the global threat once it has passed. Here are some possible scenarios:
- Immediate actions will be taken at all levels nationally and globally to ensure that such a threat to humanity does not repeat itself. The causes will be systemically investigated. The data arising from the experience will be dissected and carefully scrutinized with the help of scientists and modellers, and solutions proposed and tested to identify those that are most efficacious in ameliorating the impact of any future pandemic or similar threat to humankind.
- State and federal government offices will produce reports, commercial and industrial sectors will meet in their boardrooms to consider adjustments to strategies to avoid severe operational hitches during lockdowns, the media will start concentrating on the elections and the war, and the people will be happy that they have their jobs and freedoms back.
- COVID will become a thing of the past. The government and the general public will become engrossed with the next attraction, which for Australia could be the coming elections. The media will join in, and commerce and industry will return to their normal business of maximising profits by strategizing to win a greater share of the territory and make more money.
Whatever happens, we can be sure of one thing. One of the drivers for future decisions and behaviour would be the desire for most people to stay within their comfort zones, and ignore the harsh realities outside. Comfort zones invariably play a key role in determining the outcomes and repercussions of crises of national and international proportions.
7. The real issue
Before one proceeds further with an analysis of a problem, it pays to examine it critically. And when one puts covid under such scrutiny, one thing that stands out is that it belongs to a special class of problems. Not acknowledging this is probably going to hold back progress for a long time.
The issue is this:
The covid pandemic is strongly and hopelessly anti-coupled to the economy. Taking actions to fix covid will invariably be at the expense of the economy.
To put this simply –
We can either re-start the economy and see workers returning to work and the tourists foreign students arriving back in the country
or
stop the spread of covid with lockdowns and other restrictions on our freedoms of movement. But we cannot do the two things together. We are trapped in this inescapable human predicament.
Society has encountered this kind of a predicament before. And the response of the general public has tended to be the same. To ignore it, or to sweep it under the carpet. Perhaps the easiest way to do this is to point to other imperatives every time the issue is brought up.
People generally do not want to know about difficult problems. They are too intractable. It is much easier to ignore them, and to create a comfort zone they can slip into easily. It gives them a comforting feeling, and a sense of self-assurance. It frees them from moral obligations to things far removed from them, or to society at large.
The governments (within Australia and abroad) seem to have realised the inevitability of the anti-correlation between covid and the economy, and are now taking actions in favour of the economy. Both Britain and Australia have decided to go this way in the last week. Expressions such as “living with covid” are frequently being heard in official comments and political rhetoric everywhere.
One can only hope that the expected surge in covid numbers will be containable. Ironically, the saving grace may be omicron’s mild nature and its peaking behaviour, both of which were well-known from as early as last December.
8. The way forward
But is there a way out of this predicament?
Yes there is.
The solution will not be immediate. One will have to allow it to develop slowly. And most importantly, it will involve a transformational change.
Our global policy-making organisation has already suggested it in another context, and taken the first steps towards implementing the relevant policies in 2015. They form an integral part of the Paris Agreement. The UNFCCC (and its scientific wing in the form of the IPCC) knows that many of the impacts of climate change on the earth’s biosphere cannot be reversed, so humankind will simply have to adapt to them. We need to do the same with covid and its consequences, and similar calamities possibly awaiting us in the future.
Finding the solution that fits will mean pushing the envelope of our imagination a bit. But this can be done.
More in Part 2.
Happy thinking!
Anirudh Singh
Melbourne, 25 February 2022
Recent Comments