Chryssi Giannitsarou, Flavio Toxvaerd, 12 July 2020

We do not yet know whether individuals who recover from COVID-19 can be reinfected. If immunity wanes, the disease will become endemic, in sharp contrast to a model in which recovery confers permanent immunity. This column considers the possibility that immunity is indeed only temporary, and derives a stylised optimal containment policy to reduce the initial wave of contagion and then manage persistent infections. In practice, this means that partial lockdowns and social distancing measures may be the norm for years to come. 

Paolo Falco, Sarah Zaccagni, 09 July 2020

Reminders to encourage social distancing have been used widely by the authorities around the world during the crisis. Based on a randomised controlled trial conducted in Denmark, this column shows what types of messages are most (and least) effective in convincing people to stay home. People’s good intentions often do not translate into the desired actions. Reminders significantly increase compliance with social distancing among people in poor health who face the greatest risks.

Luan Borelli, Geraldo Goes, 01 July 2020

Brazil has faced great difficulties in controlling the COVID-19 epidemic, having become the world’s epicentre of the coronavirus pandemic and recently reaching 50,000 fatalities. This column argues that the great heterogeneities between states in Brazil, together with difficulties in political coordination, may have shaped these consequences. Looking at five states, it investigates whether certain differences in the states’ intrinsic characteristics may have influenced the dynamics of the local epidemic. Governments may need to consider local conditions and adopt heterogeneous containment policies.

Caitlin Brown, Martin Ravallion, Dominique van de Walle, 27 June 2020

Recommendations to limit the spread of COVID-19 call for social distancing, washing, and access to information and treatment. However, people need to be in household environments that allow them to follow those recommendations. This column examines the relationship between poverty and the adequacy of the home environment. There is a strong wealth effect both within and between countries, where the poor are less likely to have the kind of dwellings and infrastructure to follow WHO recommendations. Complementary policies to address such inadequate home environments are needed.

Toshihiro Okubo, 25 June 2020

The Japanese government’s policy response to the COVID-19 pandemic was to ask people to refrain from leaving their homes and to encourage teleworking. This column examines the effect of COVID-19 on the uptake of teleworking in a country that has the lowest use among developed countries. Overall, teleworking increased about 4 percentage points from January to March 2020, driven by industries and occupations related to information and located in the Tokyo metropolitan area. Teleworking is not suited to face-to-face services and manual labour, which saw substantial declines in worker incomes.

Timo Mitze, Reinhold Kosfeld, Johannes Rode, Klaus Wälde, 22 June 2020

Confronted with a novel, aggressive coronavirus, Germany implemented measures to reduce its spread since March 2020. Requiring people to wear face masks in public places has, however, been a subject of controversy and isolating the effect of mask-wearing on the spread of COVID-19 is not simple. This column looks at the town of Jena and other German regions that introduced face masks before the rest of the country to see whether the requirement makes a difference in the number of new COVID-19 cases. Requiring face masks to be worn decreases the growth rate of COVID-19 cases by about 40% in Germany.

Pragyan Deb, Davide Furceri, Jonathan D. Ostry, Nour Tawk, 17 June 2020

Containment measures to halt the spread of the 2019 coronavirus pandemic entail large short-term economic costs. This column attempts to quantify these effects using daily global data on real-time containment measures and daily indicators of economic activity. Over a 30-day period from implementation, containment measures have, on average, led to a loss of about 15% in industrial production. Macroeconomic policy measures have however mitigated some of these economic costs. Stay-at-home requirements and workplace closures are most effective in curbing both infections and deaths but are also associated with the largest economic costs.

Juan C. Palomino, Juan Gabriel Rodríguez, Raquel Sebastian, 16 June 2020

Enforced social distancing and lockdown measures to contain COVID-19 restrict economic activity, especially among workers in non-essential jobs who cannot ‘telework’. These have implications for inequality and poverty. This column analyses the capacity of individuals in 29 European countries to work under lockdown and the potential impact of a two-month lockdown on wages and inequality levels. There will be substantial and uneven wage losses across the board and poverty will rise. Inequality within countries will worsen, as it will between countries although to a lesser extent.

Pragyan Deb, Davide Furceri, Jonathan D. Ostry, Nour Tawk, 05 June 2020

Countries have implemented several containment measures to halt the spread of COVID-19 and limit the number of fatalities. This column, using daily data on coronavirus cases and deaths as well as on real-time containment measures implemented by countries, argues that containment measures have been very effective in flattening the ‘pandemic curve’. The effects have been stronger in countries where containment measures have been implemented faster and in those with a larger share of an elderly population, stronger health systems, lower temperatures, and lower population density.

Nicola Fuchs-Schündeln, Moritz Kuhn, Michèle Tertilt, 30 May 2020

The COVID-19 crisis has hit women’s employment particularly hard, partly because the worst-hit sectors have high female employment shares, but also because schools and daycare closures have forced more mothers to leave their jobs. This column looks at Germany, where 26% of the workforce has children aged 14 or younger, and quantifies the macroeconomic importance of working parents. If schools and daycare centres remain closed as the economy slowly reopens, 11% of workers and 8% of all working hours will be lost to the labour market. Policies to restart the economy must accommodate the concerns of these families.

Guillaume Chapelle, 20 May 2020

Non-pharmaceutical interventions such as school closures and social distancing were implemented in the US against the spread of the 1918 influenza pandemic. This column explores the effect of these interventions on economic activity and death rates in US cities during and after 1918. The policies lowered the fatality rate during the peak of the pandemic but are associated with a significant rise in the death rate in subsequent years, possibly through reducing herd immunity. Their impact, positive or negative, on the growth of the manufacturing sector in US cities remains an open question.

Ayça Tekin-Koru, 14 May 2020

The strict and prolonged age-specific containment measures in Turkey have both reduced infection/death rates and enabled less strict restrictions for the lower-risk groups. This column reviews Turkey’s response and examines the real-time effects of the COVID-19 crisis on production in Turkey. If finds that the targeted containment measures appear to have helped reduce a contraction in production that could have been much worse with a uniform lockdown. It also finds that the major brunt of the health crisis in terms of its human costs has been borne by the working class.

Ramanand Jeeneea, Kaviraj Sharma Sukon, 09 May 2020

The government of Mauritius responded early to the COVID-19 pandemic with stringent lockdown measures and saw a drastic reduction in new cases. This column examines the Mauritian response and estimates that the measures led to an 80% reduction in the coronavirus transmission rate. A well-implemented and early ‘hard lockdown’ can be effective in managing the spread of COVID-19.

Zachary Bethune, Anton Korinek, 03 May 2020

At the centre of the debate on how to deal with the novel coronavirus is whether to aim for containment or herd immunity. A crucial factor in this decision is whether we are guided by individually optimising behaviour or by overall societal welfare, since COVID-19 gives rise to substantial externalities. This column calculates that while individuals perceive the cost of becoming infected to be $80,000 the true social cost is more than three times higher, and argues that public health authorities should use mandatory measures to account for these externalities. To ameliorate the costs of the trade-off, it is crucial to develop sufficient testing and tracing capacity so that untargeted lockdowns and the economic cost involved can be ended. 

Nicolas Ajzenman, Tiago Cavalcanti, Daniel Da Mata, 02 May 2020

Regardless of their scientific soundness, COVID-19 recommendations from political leaders such as President Trump are taken seriously by followers. In Brazil, President Bolsonaro has publicly flaunted social distancing measures and downplayed the seriousness of the disease in at least two well-publicised instances. This column analyses the effects of Bolsonaro’s actions and speeches in the month of March on Brazilians’ social-distancing behaviours, using electoral data and geo-localised mobile phone data from 60 million devices. The findings suggest that social distancing behaviour decreased in municipalities with stronger support for Bolsonaro.

ChaeWon Baek, Peter B. McCrory, Todd Messer, Preston Mui, 30 April 2020

Stay-at-home orders have been imposed in many countries to flatten the COVID-19 pandemic curve, but it’s not clear how much economic disruption is caused directly by the orders and how much by the coronavirus. This column disentangles the two by comparing the implementation of stay-at-home policies across the US and high-frequency unemployment insurance claims. The direct effect of stay-at-home orders accounted for a significant but minority share of the overall rise in unemployment claims; unemployment would have risen even without such orders. So long as the underlying public health crisis persists, undoing stay-at-home orders will only bring limited economic relief.

Nils Karlson, Charlotta Stern, Daniel Klein, 20 April 2020

Sweden has largely bucked the lockdown trend, leaving much to the discretion of individual citizens. This column offers an account of some of the institutional and cultural underpinnings of Sweden’s COVID regime, and attempts to explain why the country has opted for a relatively permissive approach.

Tobias Hartl, Klaus Wälde, Enzo Weber, 14 April 2020

Containment measures have been in place in Germany since the middle of March in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This column examines the impact of these measures on the spread of the virus. It finds a reduction in the growth rate of COVID-19 seven days after the implementation of the policies on 13 March and again eight days after the implementation of further measures on 22 March. 

James Stock, 04 April 2020

Decisions about whether to clamp down or ease up on social distancing hinge on how deadly and widespread is the novel coronavirus. But as this column discusses, neither is known because tests for the virus have focused on those showing severe symptoms and at high risk. If the virus is still not widespread, then it is deadly and there is still time to implement measures – more severe than those currently in place in the US – to suppress it until a vaccine or treatment becomes available. If the virus is widespread, then the true death rate is low and cautiously opening up the economy becomes an option. Data from random testing of the population, which are still unavailable, are critical to informing this choice.

Christian Gollier, Stephane Straub, 03 April 2020

During the lockdowns in place in many countries, certain essential activities must be maintained. This column, the second in a three-part series, asks how we can determine a policy of exemptions to containment beyond these obvious activities, as well as how we might eventually exit containment. It argues that the cost of going to work – i.e. the risk of contracting the disease and becoming a vector of transmission – has to be compared to the societal benefit of the activity generated, and that the calculation often differs depending on whether one adopts an individual or a collective point of view. 

Pages

Events

CEPR Policy Research