It was wrong to believe that 'saving the economy' was an alternative to 'saving people's lives’. We see in the data that those countries that kept the health impact low are also the countries that suffered the smallest economic consequences.
Countries which have prioritised the health of their people have also generally managed to protect their economy as well. The supposed choice between health and the economy is a false one. Via :
Over the last months I often said that I’m expecting that „countries that do best in protecting lives will do best in protecting their economy“. now looked at the data and that’s what he finds for the first months of the pandemic.
Countries' Covid responses: No sign of a health-economy trade-off; quite the opposite.
“As well as saving lives, countries controlling the outbreak effectively may have adopted the best economic strategy too.” Comprehensive look at the available data on this VERY important question from ⁦⁩.
Response to the pandemic has often been framed as a trade-off between protecting health and the economy. This isn't reflected in the latest GDP data. As explores: countries with the lowest death rate have also performed better economically.
Important analysis showing the UK has failed on #COVID19 deaths AND on the economy. "Countries that have managed to protect their population’s health in the pandemic have generally also protected their economy too." #ZeroCOVID 1/2
"in some countries the economic downturn has indeed been extremely severe: in #Spain, the UK and Tunisia, the output of the economy in the second quarter was more than 20% smaller than in the same period last year" 👉🏽
New study () shows that those countries which have more deaths have taken a bigger hit to the economy. In other words, it's not true that there is an economy/punlic health trade off. Rather, the best way of protecting the economy is driving deaths down.
This is not a causal analysis, but the pattern we see here does not immediately suggest that there is a tradeoff whereby controlling COVID comes at the expense of damage to the economy.
Many see the response to the pandemic as a trade-off between protecting health or protecting the economy. But that doesn’t fit what we see in the latest GDP data: countries with few COVID-19 deaths have generally faired better in economic terms too.
No evidence of a trade-off between protecting people’s health from COVID and protecting the economy. The same holds for climate change. It's cheaper in the long-term to prevent it than to fix the damages.
No sign of a health-economy trade-off, quite the opposite #COVID19
Dear , We have the data. We don't need to choose between lives and livelihoods. We can choose both. The evidence from is clear The countries who are doing best against the virus are also suffering the least economically.
If WA was a nation. It's clear WA's approach is the best for our health & economy. WA fourth best on the planet. 'Countries controlling the outbreak effectively may have adopted the best economic strategy too' (Original data from: ) Fyi
12) The fact that there isn't a health/economy trade-off is pretty clear from the international picture to date - for an international, data-focused view that avoids the common cherry-picking there seems to be a *lot* of going on
International evicence suggests: countries that have managed to protect their population’s health in the pandemic have generally also protected their economy. There is no health-economy trade-off; if anything, it's the opposite:
For all those saying there's a tradeoff between protecting health and protecting the economy, this: Comparing COVID-19 death rate with latest GDP data, we see that countries that have protected their population’s health have also protected their economy.
“Comparing the #COVID death rate with the latest GDP data, we see that countries that have managed to protect their population’s health in the pandemic have generally also protected their economy too.” Very important findings, politically & beyond.
Agreed. Let's factor in the economic figures... A 0.3% drop in GDP for Taiwan, which has had 7 deaths. An 8.3% drop for Sweden. And nearly 6,000 deaths. Why anyone would choose the latter over the former is beyond my understanding tbh.
Trump is not responsible for 200k COVID-19 deaths: many other countries including the UK & Italy have had a similar number of deaths per capita. US policy likely made the death toll worse, but saying the whole 200k are Trump’s fault is an exaggeration.
Which countries have protected both their citizens and their economies? There's no economic or financial reason our Govt can't support us through this, they just don't WANT to, for ideological reasons
You want to restore the economy? Then crush the virus first. You are worried about increasing poverty, loneliness, depression? You are quite right to be worried. But you should crush the virus first. The evidence is clear: it's NOT a trade-off.
"We do not see any evidence of a trade-off between protecting people’s health and protecting the economy."
Lots of false dichotomies when it comes to COVID-19. Choose the economy or public health is one of the most egregious. Data shows countries with low fatality generally do better economically & vice versa.
¿Qué países han protegido tanto la salud como la economía durante la pandemia?
Countries with fewer COVID-19 deaths per capita also had better economic performance. Some (correctly) point out this does not prove that lockdowns are costless for the economy. Yet... #mssp630 #mssp668
As well as saving lives, countries controlling the #COVID19 pandemic effectively may have adopted the best economic strategy too.
Which countries have protected both health and the economy in the pandemic? via
Why there is no evidence for a trade-off between health and economy, quite to the contrary. #COVID19 /2
No sign of a health-economy trade-off, quite the opposite. comparison of Covid deaths and recession
"No sign of a health-economy trade-off, quite the opposite"
If you wait too long to take measures against rising infections for fear of adverse side effects, eventually you will be forced to take even more drastic measures with more serious side effects, and it will take even longer to crush the curve again. /2