Page 36 - COVID-19: The Great Reset

1. On the supply side, if prematurely loosening the various
restrictions and the rules of social distancing result in an

acceleration of infection (which almost all scientists believe
it would), more employees and workers would become
infected and more businesses would just stop functioning.
After the onset of the pandemic in 2020, the validity of this

argument was proven on several occasions. They ranged
from factories that had to stop operating because too many
workers had fallen ill (primarily the case for work
environments that forced physical proximity between

workers, like in meat-processing facilities) to naval ships
stranded because too many crew members had been
infected, thus preventing the vessel from operating
normally. An additional factor that negatively affects the

supply of labour is that, around the world, there were
repeated instances of workers refusing to return to work for
fear of becoming infected. In many large companies,
employees who felt vulnerable to the disease generated a

wave of activism, including work stoppages.
2. On the demand side, the argument boils down to the most
basic, and yet fundamental, determinant of economic
activity: sentiments. Because consumer sentiments are

what really drive economies, a return to any kind of
“normal” will only happen when and not before confidence
returns. Individuals’ perceptions of safety drive consumer
and business decisions, which means that sustained

economic improvement is contingent upon two things: the
confidence that the pandemic is behind us – without which
people will not consume and invest – and the proof that the
virus is defeated globally – without which people will not be

able to feel safe first locally and subsequently further afield.

The logical conclusion of these two points is this: governments
must do whatever it takes and spend whatever it costs in the
interests of our health and our collective wealth for the economy

to recover sustainably. As both an economist and public-health
specialist put it: “Only saving lives will save livelihoods”, [23] making
it clear that only policy measures that place people’s health at

35