Health officials and government authorities ignored the risk of asymptomatic transmission of Covid-19 despite mounting evidence from scientists across the world. Acknowledgement of the risk would have necessitated drastic containment measures, something which government officials were reluctant to implement. Timely response was the most crucial element for stopping the global spread of the disease.
Paul Romer, an economist, shared a New York Times article on how a two-month delay over public health response to the Covid-19 pandemic led to its global spread. The delay was due to faulty scientific assumptions and resistance towards new evidence on the evolving nature of the disease, which resulted in a sluggish response to controlling the spread of the virus.
Despite some scientists raising red flags over asymptomatic transmission, the warnings were dismissed by health officials and political leaders. Asymptomatic transmission would have required more aggressive methods of containment including wearing of masks by healthy persons and restriction of international travel.
The reluctance of adopt such drastic measures was one of the main reasons for the global spread of the disease that has cost thousands of lives, the article adds.
More on public health response to unexpected evidence:
"The two-month delay was a product of faulty scientific assumptions, academic rivalries … The resistance to emerging evidence was one part of the world’s sluggish response to the virus.”https://t.co/Axc3vohzDn
How well do you really know your competitors?
Access the most comprehensive Company Profiles on the market, powered by GlobalData. Save hours of research. Gain competitive edge.Company Profile – free sample
Your download email will arrive shortly
Not ready to buy yet? Download a free sample
We are confident about the unique quality of our Company Profiles. However, we want you to make the most beneficial decision for your business, so we offer a free sample that you can download by submitting the below formBy GlobalData
— Paul Romer (@paulmromer) June 28, 2020
Adam Posen, president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, shares an article comparing the job retention schemes and other support provided to households, and small and medium size enterprises by the US and France.
The article notes that despite the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) initiated by the US being twice in size in terms of proportion of GDP as that implemented by France, it has been less effective in serving its purpose. The PPP was poorly implemented and failed to reach people and curbing unemployment.
The French approach, however, was far more effective as it was open to all companies that suffered a loss in business due to the pandemic.
Job retention schemes and other support for #SMEs governments in the US and Europe introduced in response to #COVID19 have had mixed success. The US program has been more expensive but less effective than the French approach at curbing unemployment. https://t.co/S2gPAnEjex
— Peterson Institute (@PIIE) June 29, 2020
Ugo Panizza, professor and Pictet Chair at the Graduate Institute Geneva, shared an article on how the sub-Saharan Africa sub and poorest parts of South Asia face the biggest economic risks from the recession caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.
The GDP in Africa is expected to be permanently 1% lower than that expected in a no Covid-19 scenario provided the pandemic is contained quickly. In a case where the pandemic lasts more than 18 months, the GDP is expected to be permanently 4% lower than that expected in a no Covid-19 scenario.