"The economist and philosopher Amartya Sen recently pointed out to me that the presence of disease kills people, and the absence of livelihood also kills people."
Those are the words of journalist Emily Bazelon, in this exceptional piece from The New York Times.
Tasked with moderating a discussion on COVID-19, Bazelon and five thinkers delve into the ethical and economic implications of the pandemic.
As with all conversation around this topic, there is disclaimer around the taboo: "the politics of the coronavirus have made it seem indecent to talk about the future."
If indecency is allowing irreversible economic damage to unfold, in addition to an escalating healthcare crisis, then perhaps it's time to ditch the PG rating.
A solution for one doesn't discount the need to develop a solution for the other.
Let's take a moment to acknowledge the current work undertaken:
- Countries invested in immediate containment, such as New Zealand and to a slower degree Australia, have fared better in slowing the spread of COVID-19.
- Government stimulus packages, particularly for businesses, have provided stabilisation during a period of crisis and disruption.
But what next?
If a vaccine is indeed 12-18 months away, let alone its worldwide administration, what is the process for reactivating social and economic life?
Those disputing the ethics of asking such a question only need to look to our manufacturing partners in Bangladesh, where apparel factories account for some 84% of the country's $40 billion export sector.
With retailers in hibernation and garment orders on hold, millions of vulnerable workers have been left in limbo as demand plummets.
A question of ethics surely considers those most at risk in crisis.
Closer to home, Australia's own unemployment rate rose to 5.2 per cent in March, prior to the imposition of lockdown laws.
Looking forward to April projections, second half restrictions on pubs, clubs, restaurants and cafes mean the unemployment figure will be even worse.
As valiant frontline workers combat COVID-19, and broader society participates in lockdown efforts, it's time to ask the hard question.
What are we doing in the long-term to ensure our survival?