These days, I have been keeping on top of the situation in the countries beset by the outbreak of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19). Fearful of economic collapse, as it is hard to extend the lockdown without knowing how long the crisis may last, some countries are starting to get on with business as usual.
In the US, for example, the Trump administration has adopted precautionary measures to open up the economy. As it did so, the government sparked a heated battle with state governors.
In Germany, restrictions on public life have been eased. German Health Minister Jens Spahn has warned, however, that the risks associated with the COVID-19 outbreak cannot yet be ruled out. Although the outbreak is ebbing in Germany, the situation remains uncertain and unsafe.
In many countries, exit strategies from the crisis are hotly debated. In particular, people are wondering when the crisis might end and how to avoid another, more dramatic one in the future. Views vary, evidently, from country to country, but also from one side to the other.
For instance, economic policymakers are keen to avoid further losses that would be difficult to make up for. Medical and health experts, on the other hand, have little appetite to put economics above public health. They fear a resurgence.
The conversation between advocates and opponents of public health restrictions is also taking place in social media. Many argue about the pros and cons of such procedures. All these discussions are presumed to be carried out with good will and concern for the common good. However, it must be remembered that some decisions cannot be made following a single point of view.
In situations of major crisis, as is the case today in the coronavirus epidemic, decision-making requires an across-the-board approach. Whether it is to impose restrictions on public life or to gradually lift bans and return to a normal pace of life, decision-making must be based on solid information from all sectors and provide a complete snapshot of reality in all its aspects.
It must be assessed how the measures taken affect society in its economic, security, political, health and even psychological dimensions. The issue, even if it revolves around a health dilemma, has global implications. In the absence of such considerations, we cannot set out an integrated vision or strategy for crisis management and decision-making.
Complicating decision-making in these circumstances is the fact that there is no light at the end of the tunnel. In fact, no internationally recognized vaccines or treatments have yet been found. Leaders therefore have to deal with an unprecedented scenario: bringing human health into line with keeping national economies from collapsing under the strain of the crisis. In other words, they have to strike a fine balance between two losses based on precise calculations, data and considerations.
For me, as a researcher, decision-making in such crises is as decisive and critical as taking decisions in times of war. This is a public health battle that is closely intertwined with national security. The profound impact of this battle far exceeds that of some military battles in human, economic and other arenas. Therefore, any debate on ways to end the crisis must be grounded in accurate and adequate information on its various aspects. Otherwise, opinions become too relative and reduced to a narrow angle.
Managing the coronavirus crisis is a major challenge for leaders. States’ national security is at stake. The calculations are not only a matter of national statistics, but also of strategic awareness, coordination and cooperation with global partners.
The end-of-crisis scenario will therefore not only create a new world. It will give rise to forward-looking leaders in countries around the world. At the same time, it will cost others a great deal of credit.
