The Zero COVID strategy is gaining ground, with countries like New Zealand standing out for their success in dealing with the epidemic. Here are some observations on why and how this strategy works. A thread. #EconTwitter #EpiTwitter #eradication #ZeroCovid The main ideas are borrowed from previous work I've done in slightly different context, looking at how disease control with multiple policies should be designed. There I looked at treatment and prevention, but ideas similar.
inet.econ.cam.ac.uk/research-paper…

Should we pay people for getting infected? Should we increase fines for rule breakers? Incentives are key for controlling epidemic & getting it wrong can backfire. So far, the government has shown poor judgment. A thread.
#EconTwitter #EpiTwitter #COVID19 theguardian.com/world/2021/jan… People must be encouraged to do the right thing & protect themselves and others. This involves mix of stick and carrot, such as fines for rule breaking and income support for self-isolating. I lay out the case for such measures here: economicsobservatory.com/externalities-…

The health-wealth tradeoff of lockdowns is still hotly debated. Here are some thoughts that may help untangle the issues. 1/17 #EconTwitter #EpiTwitter
Figure courtesy of @luismbcabral Let's start with concept of tradeoffs. With aggregate societal wealth and health on the axes, we can show all combinations that we can achieve though different policies. All points in purple region are feasible, those outside it are not. Which point should we choose? 2/17

I've been trying for some time to find a killer metaphor for why it's worth taking a short-term economic hit to better control the epidemic and thereby improve both future health and increase future economic prosperity. 1/5
#EconTwitter #EpiTwitter Most people immediately recognise static tradeoffs such as "more of one thing means less of another thing". That's why the infamous "lives versus the economy" has gained such traction in the public debate. 2/5

The UK government is flying blind, introducing policies without proper prior assessment of their likely impact on the epidemic or the economy. This is now completely clear. Below I'll go through what we now know.
#EconTwitter #lockdown 1/15 On Oct 18, I wrote a long thread about the misalignment between disease control advice received by the government from SAGE and the economic advice received by the Treasury. 2/15

https://twitter.com/toxvaerd1/status/1317960686216032256?s=20

The Danish Economic Council’s recent report contains an entire 100 page chapter on economics and epidemiology, complete with self-contained intro to epi models and a review of the new literature. #econtwitter @t0nyyates @DORsSekretariat @DalgaardCarl 1/3 In addition, it contains a number of different policy experiments and a very thorough discussion of the interaction of the economy and the virus. This is seriously impressive policy work and a model for how things can be done. 2/3

I think they made two early tactical errors that made it difficult to formulate a comprehensive strategy. (1) lack of early and widespread random texting meant they didn’t understand the scale of the problem. They had only dim idea of speed of spread and of asymptomatic ratio.

https://twitter.com/jonheathcote/status/1322963686630264841

(2) by design, they set up silos of expertise that seem to have had minimal mutual communication and coordination. Each would give independent advice on different aspects, and each largely ignoring effects of recommendations on other domain.

In discussing control measures, many people think in terms of intratemporal tradeoffs (health vs wealth), while most economists think also about the intertemporal tradeoffs (health AND wealth today vs health AND wealth tomorrow). 1/17

#EconTwitter #EpiTwitter #lockdowns I think the latter are more important than the former, but very difficult to articulate in a punchy way. What also complicates things is that we face intertwined disease and economic dynamics. 2/17

It now appears that infection numbers are worse than the “worst case scenario”. What does that mean and does this indicate a failure of the policies that the government has put in place?
1/10
#EconTwitter #epitwitter
bbc.co.uk/news/health-54… Let’s recall what the “reasonable worst case scenario” means. This is the outcome that epidemiologists think will occur when (i) people do not engage in ANY spontaneous behaviour change to protect themselves and (ii) government imposes NO restrictions on social interactions.
2/10

I like to think of local restrictions in terms of hotspotting, a term from firefighting. Idea is to identify parts that are particularly dangerous or conducive to additional spread and dealing with those first.

https://twitter.com/t0nyyates/status/1314870480072060943

But one should not lose sight of the overall fire. We cannot do each local part without an eye to the whole. The big difference is of course that local measures have differential impact on incomes and a global public good is being provided.