James K. Galbraith, Professor of Government at the University of Texas at Austin notes that the countries that "took the pandemic seriously from the start" by "clos[ing] their borders and implement[ing] testing and quarantine for anyone coming across, as well as mandat[ing] distancing at home" achieved the best health outcomes. These countries included Vietnam, Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, New Zealand, Iceland, and Cuba. Aggressive confrontation (of the contagion, not other people) coupled with high public support "kept the spread of the virus down to levels that could be tested and traced," though this required considerable disruption to normal routines.
"Isolation was intense for those exposed," Galbraith observes. Often
people "were taken to special facilities, locked in, and taken care of
for two weeks," whether they were symptomatic or not.
Vietnam enforced physical
distancing with cadres at the block level. In Cuba, doctors and medical
students visited every household almost daily to check for symptoms.
Korea kept case levels so low that it could identify exactly where
outbreaks were occurring and smother the spikes. "In all successful
countries," reports Galbraith, popular mobilization against the virus
was total, cooperation nearly universal, and (as a result) the success
became a matter of intense national pride" (italics added). Furthermore, "those
countries that suppressed the virus effectively without regard to
economic consequences in the short run were able to recoup most of their
economic losses."
But for those who threw up their hands at the pandemic (we're looking at you, USA) things did not work out nearly so well. Political economist Ha-Joon Chang (Cambridge) points out that once a proper medical response has been botched, only lose-lose options remain: "Once
you lose your grip on the pandemic, you end up with a 'trade-off'
between health and the economy." The U.S. in particular forfeited the response of "taking early action and
being innovative about the management of the test, trace, and isolate
system." As a result, infections surged out of control, hospitals were overwhelmed, and the deadly impact of the virus was far worse than it needed to have been.
Economist
James K. Boyce (Amherst) claims that "99 out
of every 100 lives lost could have been saved" had the U.S. had an effective infrastructure of test-and-trace in place when the pandemic broke out. "The (Covid) death toll has been
exceptionally high in nations with extreme inequality," Boyce observes, which "in a society is much like blood pressure in an individual,"a pre-existing condition that raises the likelihood of severe outcomes.
Though less important than other measures, restricting human movement (i.e. "lockdown") is also a legitimate pandemic response measure, but it needs to be coupled with replacement income for workers in order to be fully effective. As Ha-Joon Chang notes: "In countries where there is no
provision for a minimum standard of living and/or job security, a lot of
people had to go out and work even when they knew they were
infected." The obvious public health conclusion is that people should be paid to stay home when infected or at high risk of becoming so (i.e., when high levels of virus are circulating), after which restrictions can be lifted as waves of contagion subside.
Though the word "mandate" has taken on an ominous tone for many people, it needn't have. Mandates are a necessary part of modern life, and the principle underlying their legitimacy isn't particularly controversial. Nobody is too exercised about the mandate to use a seatbelt when driving a car, for example, or to pay bills in a mandated currency, or to go to school from age five to late teenage, or to pass a driving test in order to get a driver's license, or to take out a social security number (a federal ID) in order to be part of the public retirement system. These are simply sensible measures taken to facilitate living in complex societies. There is nothing inherently authoritarian about them. Yes, any mandate can be abused, but that does not mean that there should be no mandates.
Mandates that can lead to loss of employment are obviously more serious, but this is because of the required job more than the required jab. Decent societies would not require their members to prostitute themselves to monopoly interests (directly or indirectly) in the first place, which would take a lot of the sting out of vaccine mandates. However, the principle of restricting access to public space until people have verified they are doing everything possible to reduce the risk of infecting others with deadly disease is entirely reasonable. There is no "bodily autonomy" when every set of lungs is linked to every other set by virus-laden air.
Source material for the above: "Economics and the Left: Interviews with Progressive Economists," Edited by C. J. Polychroniou (Verso, 2021)
James K. Boyce, pps. 55-7
Ha-Joon Chang, pps. 79-82
James K. Galbraith, pps. 145-8
Excerpts from other economists in the book:
Michael Ash, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Teresa Ghilarducci, New School For Social Research
".
. . most Western democracies, while flattening their disease curves,
also flattened inequity by keeping their schools open. Because the US
will not engage in enough non-pharmaceutical interventions - such as
mandating masks - nor provide funds for more space between students and
school-based protective equipment (PPE) many children who don't have
private pods, internet, adult supervision, and private schools will be
left behind. At the same time, others are merely inconvenienced. Not
continuing the extra stimulus checks and generous unemployment benefits
reduced income replacement for the most economically vulnerable
families." (171)
Jayati Ghosh, Amherst
"
. . . there are other pressing challenges that the pandemic has brought
to the surface. It has exposed the horrifying effects of decades of
public under-funding of health and societal undermining of care work. So,
the New Deal must also be Purple, with an emphasis on the care economy
and massive investment to fund enhanced and improved care activities. .
. . The decades of neo-liberal policy hegemony have led to drastic
decline in per capita public health spending in rich and poor countries
alike. It is now more than obvious that this was not just an unequal and
unjust strategy but a stupid one: it has taken an infectious disease to
drive home the point that the health of the elite ultimately depends on
the health of the poorest members of society, and therefore those who
advocated reduced public health spending and privatization of health
services did so at their own peril." (186-7)
Ilene Grabel, University of Denver
"The
failed response to the COVID-19 crisis in the US is a perfect
illustration of destructive incoherence. Instead of a federal response
to the COVID-19 crisis there was propaganda, denial, and chaos. All
manner of destructive incoherence becomes more apparent daily in the US
as the COVID-19 crisis unfolds. The same can be said of the process of
distributing the vaccine . . . . .Balanced budget rules at the state and
municipal levels constrain their fiscal capacity and canceled out much
of the effects of federal fiscal expansionism associated with the
inadequate CARES act. At the same time the absence of federal leadership
in implementing closures and openings of schools and workplaces, and in
securing ventilators and personal protective equipment, continue to
have horrific consequences in terms of loss of life, mental health,
unemployment, poverty, homelessness, food insecurity, and access to
education. . . . desperate intrastate responses are hardly to be
celebrated. The absence of federal leadership was nothing short of
criminal neglect." (207)
"
. . . national governments in many European contexts moved quite far in
the direction of expansive, universal social protection. In many
European contexts, states supported furloughed workers in ways that were
inconceivable in the US. " (208)
".
. . the monopoly system that protects the rents associated with
intellectual property will render the vaccine out of reach" of most
Third World countries." (208)
"
It is a certainty that widespread, lasting debt crises in the Global
South and East will be but one lasting legacy of the COVID-19 crisis,
promising yet another 'lost decade.' . . . comprehensive debt relief
should be a far higher priority." (210)
Costas Lapavitsas, University of London
"The
crisis was caused to a large extent by the state itself, since states
imposed the medieval practice of lockdowns and social distancing to
confront the disease. A better response would have been mass testing,
tracing, and isolating those who were infected, together with strong
support at the primary level for the most vulnerable groups. COVID-19
has a class character, hitting harder the poorest and weakest in
society, those with long-standing health ailments. But a grassroots
strategy would have required substantial resources and, even more
important, strategic planning imbued with public spirit. (italics added). The main
neo-liberal states in the world were unwilling and unable to deliver it,
for instance, in the US and the UK. Lockdowns were the default option,
and they have weighed very heavily on workers and the poor."
"Lockdowns
gave rise to a vast and unprecedented crisis because the world economy
never properly recovered from the last great crisis of 2007-09. Most of
the important metrics have been below trend for both core and peripheral
countries during the last decade. Lockdowns delivered an enormous shock
to aggregate demand and supply, which then led to an unprecedented
response by nation-states. I don't think there is anything comparable in
the history of capitalism." (224)
Zhongjin Li, University of Missouri-Kansas City
".
. . regions with more united responses and collective mobilization,
both in terms of political/public willingness and mobilization capacity,
have witnessed relative success in controlling the spread. . .
". . . rigorous lockdowns and strict quarantines with national regional
coordination proved effective in controlling the spread as the first
response. This was evident in China, though less so in Japan and South
Korea. There, free treatment of Covid-patients, confirmed or suspected,
along with mass testing as well as contact tracing have gained public
confidence. This was stunningly different from the US approach to
dealing with the pandemic. Since everyone can be infected, it is
extremely important to guarantee free and equal access to public health
resources. As most countries experienced shortages in medical equipment,
the effectiveness in response also depends on the mobilization of
national and regional resources with central and concerted guidance and
action. . . .
"China's community-centered social infrastructure,
including community hospitals, neighborhood committees, etc. has proven
effective in the COVID-19 pandemic, helping protect people's right to
food, health, and livelihood, especially for the poor. The institutions
and people working in the community are not mobilized ad hoc only for
disaster relief, but rather, based on a long-standing social
infrastructure that coordinates locally nonexclusive service provision
for social reproduction. Instead of individualizing the responsibility
and costs of 'flattening the curve,' state-subsidized and locally
supported community services in the age of COVID-19 socializes costs and
maximizes effectiveness. . . .
"In terms of economic policies, countries
prioritizing people's health and safety over reopening of the economy
have also achieved more rapid recovery." . . . Without addressing job
and livelihood precarity, a simple cash subsidy is more likely to
benefit only the rentier capitalists." (240) . . . The COVID crisis is a
wake-up call for us to strengthen the public sector and build community
infrastructure. . . " (241)
William Milberg, New School For Social Research
"
. . . it has become very evident in the pandemic that the decoupling
of social protection, especially health insurance and retirement
security, from employment, can be doubly disastrous for well being. Most
European welfare systems have from their origins disconnected an
individual's attainment of these protections from the individual's
employment status, with the result that the negative impact of the
pandemic has been much reduced. (262) . . . The research that led to the
rapid development of the vaccine was largely underwritten by public
funds. The private capture of profits from the innovation limits the
social return, and the rigidity of the intellectual property regime
means that a good that would have major benefits globally will be
available only slowly and in a limited way beyond the rich countries."
(263)
Leonce Ndikumana, Amherst
"The
lack of social safety nets in these countries (i.e. developing
countries) makes it impossible to implement preventive measures such as
lockdowns or remote working. (278) With governments in the Global South
facing chronic financing shortages, they are not equipped to fund the
necessary interventions to support workers who lose their jobs and firms
that face collapse in demand." " . . . the only viable strategy is
prevention." (279)
Malcolm Sawyer, University of Leeds (UK)
"The
privatized and often centralized test-and-trace operations,which often
involved layers of subcontracting, undermined the established system for
contact tracing run by local public health protection teams in the
public sector. . . . .The key difficulties can be identified as arising
from chaotic and expensive privatization instead of relying on properly
funded local expertise." (339)
"There
was a neglect of the health and social effects of the lockdown - the
effects on mental health of prolonged isolation, lost schooling, etc."
(340)
"There
have undoubtedly been harmful effects on children's education, which
will have long-term effects. These have fallen particularly on children
in low-income households who are unlikely to have access to computers
and to the internet." (340)
"
. . . there was a general lack of preparedness in areas such as
availability of personal protective equipment and fiscal measures to
support income and employment in face of shutdowns." (340)
Juliet Schor, Boston College
"In
Europe, governments in France, Spain, Italy, the UK and other countries
quickly decided to support employment by paying 80 percent of the
salaries of employees even as their employers furloughed them." (353)
Fiona Tregenna, University of Johannesburg (South Africa)
"Living
in a society with vastly unequal access to sanitation and other
infrastructure and services, in which a large section of the population
live in congested living conditions, in which there is under-investment
in the public health service and general running down of the state,
means higher infection rates and risks for everyone." (395)
No comments:
Post a Comment