Published: 10 May 2020

https://dailyasianage.com/news/228973/strategy-of-bangladesh-to-face-coronavirus

Strategy of Bangladesh to face coronavirus

M S Siddiqui

The COVID-19 outbreak has generated furious debates about what measures might best contain the spread of the disease and limit mortality. As social distancing becomes a universal strategy to combat COVID-19. This was the primary policy for combating the COVID-19 pandemic adapted by China and has been widely followed in Europe and North America. The developing countries has copied the same strategy. A parallel conversation has emerged about the economic devastation caused by such measures, especially as the virus reaches low-income countries. According to the forecast released by the Economist Intelligence Unit on 26 March, the global economy is presume to contract by -2.2% in 2020. These effects are projected to impact be more on major G20 economies, such as Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom and the US. All countries that are major markets for Bangladesh's most exportable readymade garments. The pandemic also poses an economic and humanitarian crisis in Bangladesh. ADB's preliminary estimates indicate that about 0.2 per cent to 0.4 per cent of GDP may be lost due to spill over effects of the global COVID-19 pandemic. The lowest ever prices of oil will also lead to a strong reversal of growth in the Middle East and North Africa region, which is also home to a large Bangladeshi diaspora, who send back close to $20 billion every year. Middle East countries already send back 10 lac workers to Bangladesh. Recently, Bangladesh government has allowed limited scale of economic activities specially the production at export oriented RMG sector. It attract mixed reaction in the society. The economists and low-income groups are in favour of opening up the economy but the medical and other social scientists are critical of the decision. The debate is without any proven example in favour of their opinion. In this context, a study by Zachary Barnett-Howell and Ahmed Mushfiq Mobarak at Yale University on Social Distancing Policy in Low-Income Countries published on April 2, 2020.

The researchers combine country-specific economic estimates of the benefits of disease avoidance with an epidemiological model that projects the spread of COVID-19 to analyse, whether the benefits of social distancing and suppression varies across rich and poor countries. The researchers taken into account that following statistical and practical situation now prevailing in the developed and developing countries. The social distancing interventions and aggressive suppression are overwhelmingly justified in high-income societies. They have attempted to quantitatively explore whether similar mitigation and suppression strategies are equally justified in low and middle income countries. Are the net benefits of countrywide lock-downs also overwhelmingly positive in poor countries? The study shows that the COVID 19 skews towed older population and population of developed countries having more elderly are worse victims. It has been predicted that population level mortality rates are just below 0.8% in the United States and other OECD economies. Countries and regions with younger populations, such as Bangladesh and Sub-Saharan Africa, face much lower risk, with the unmitigated spread of COVID-19 leading to predicted mortality rates of 0.39% and 0.21%, respectively. This is happening despite the comparatively poor health system capacity such as hospital beds per capita and medical personals in developing countries. The social distancing measures are saving a large number of lives in high-income countries, to the extent that practically any economic cost of distancing is worth bearing. Even then, these developed countries started opening up their economies activities despite the death toll is around 400 to 700 per day. The LDCs and other developing countries unable to bear the cost of social distancing and lockdown and much lower estimated benefits of social distancing and social suppression in low-income countries are driven by three critical factors: (a) LDCs and Developing countries have smaller proportions of elderly people to save via social distancing compared to low-fertility rich nations. (b) Social distancing saves lives in rich countries by flattening the curve of infections, to reduce pressure on health systems. Delaying infections is not as useful in countries where the limited number of hospital beds and ventilators are already overwhelmed and not accessible to most. Flattening the epidemiological curve of COVID-19 to buy time until a vaccine can be develop. This strategy may not be very useful for poor countries, if the timeline for vaccine development is too long for social distancing to maintain. (c) Social distancing lowers disease risk by limiting people's economic opportunities. Poorer people are naturally less willing to make those economic sacrifices. Poor people place relatively greater value on their livelihood concerns compared to concerns about contracting coronavirus. Workers in the informal sector lack the resources and social protections to isolate themselves from others and sacrifice economic opportunities until the virus passes. By limiting their ability to earn a living, social distancing can lead to an increase in hunger, deprivation, and related mortality and morbidity in poor countries. The COVID-19 mitigation strategies considered in Wale University model is all base on reducing social contact rates. However, lower contact comes at the cost of reduced economic activity and lower earnings. Developing countries also have limited capacity to enforce distancing guidelines, and lock-downs may have counterproductive effects, if it forces informal sector workers and migrants to reverse-migrate from densely populated urban areas and spread the disease to remote rural areas of poor countries. Bangladesh government declared holiday from 25th March and tried to enforce lockdown throughout the country. A large number of city dwellers rush to ancestor's home in rural area risking the COVID 19 throughout the country. After few days, government allowed limited scale production at RMG industries. The garment workers rush to their workplace despite complete closure of public transport. In the both the journey, commuters did not follow the social distance

or rather there is no sufficient public transports and knowledge of possible impact of close contracts between fellow passengers. The important out come from the study is that moving from a policy of doing nothing to imposing social distancing yields a very large welfare improvement in rich countries. The study has noted that the economic value generated by equally effective social distancing policies is estimated to be 240 times larger for the United States, or 70 times larger for Germany, compared to the value created in Pakistan or Nigeria. The value of benefits estimated for each country translates to a savings of 59% of US GDP, 85% of German GDP, but only 14% of Bangladesh's GDP or 19% of India's. The epidemiological and economic benefits of social distancing much smaller in poorer countries, such policies may also exact a heavy toll on the poorest and most vulnerable. The social distancing and suppression interventions pioneered in Wuhan, China, and now in place throughout Europe and parts of the United States, rely on government support systems. Many workers throughout Europe still receive their salaries, and U.S. taxpayers will receive a stimulus check. Beyond the much smaller benefits of COVID-19 mitigation in poorer countries, workers in such countries are also more vulnerable to the disruption of the economy. They are more likely to rely on a daily cash wage, their work is hands-on and cannot be done while social distancing. Workers are also more vulnerable to economic disruption, and may be unable to adhere to lockdown orders. The garment workers and many other informal sectors of Bangladesh are not in records of government. There is no social insurance policy available for them. Government unable to provide them food and financial supports to these worse suffered people. Rich and poor countries would naturally evaluate those trade-offs differently, depending on how urgent the economic needs of their population are. The benefits to social distancing are a lot smaller in poorer countries. Furthermore, there is ample evidence that economic costs of distancing - especially the burden on the poor - are a lot higher. A serious assessment is therefore urgently required to determine what other measures could effectively preserve lives while minimizing losses in aggregate welfare. If widespread social distancing must be pursue, then effective steps must be made to get food, fuel, and cash into the hands of the people most at risk of hunger and deprivation. This is especially challenging in countries without well-developed social protection infrastructure. The government has taken a right decision based on economic benefits and support system to the needy people. Let us hope for the best. The writer is a legal economist.

Email: mssiddiqui2035@gmail.com