In places that have been successful in suppressing Covid-19, such as mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore, there seems to be a reluctance to accept that the disease will become endemic.
The coronavirus variants that are emerging are more transmissible, so to achieve zero or close to zero infections in these places, health authorities say virus control measures must be more stringent than before.
This is neither wise nor tenable for much longer.
With highly effective vaccines available, health authorities in these places should be focused on rolling out mass vaccination quickly so as to achieve a degree of herd immunity. This would allow them to return to normality even if the virus continues to circulate at low levels, without overwhelming the health-care system.
The irony is that due to their successful suppression of Covid-19, these places are now finding it hard to roll out vaccinations quickly. With the threat of Covid-19 having mostly receded, their populations see less incentive to get jabbed. There are a variety of reasons why these governments also often find it hard to accept that the virus will, eventually, circulate in their populations.
First, they have expended significant resources and effort in suppressing Covid-19. The ‘sunk cost bias’ means these governments do not want to feel their previous efforts have been wasted; they are therefore more likely to persist with harsh suppression to maintain or achieve zero new cases than to accept, or adapt to, Covid-19 becoming endemic.
Second, governments are loss averse: they care more about avoiding losses than pursuing gains. In places where new cases are down to very low numbers, even one new case is considered a loss (hence, mainland China’s obsession with zero infections). Opening up the economy is viewed as a gain that is weighted much less. Related to this is that decision-makers have a diminishing sensitivity to ever larger losses. As economic losses mount, decision-makers may have become insensitive to them. But in the places that have had zero (or close to zero) cases, even a handful of new cases is viewed as unacceptable.
Third, there is the ‘status quo bias’. Now that suppression is the status quo in these places, it is very risky for officials to propose anything but a maintenance of, or quick reversion to, stringent measures whenever there is a spike in cases. If they fail to do this and the subsequent surge in cases reveals they had erred, they would be punished by an unforgiving public. Meanwhile, sticking to the status quo is virtually risk-free: even if they are found later to have been too risk-averse and should have loosened the restrictions earlier, no one is punished for excessive conservatism.
More at https://tinyurI.com/52cxam67
The coronavirus variants that are emerging are more transmissible, so to achieve zero or close to zero infections in these places, health authorities say virus control measures must be more stringent than before.
This is neither wise nor tenable for much longer.
With highly effective vaccines available, health authorities in these places should be focused on rolling out mass vaccination quickly so as to achieve a degree of herd immunity. This would allow them to return to normality even if the virus continues to circulate at low levels, without overwhelming the health-care system.
The irony is that due to their successful suppression of Covid-19, these places are now finding it hard to roll out vaccinations quickly. With the threat of Covid-19 having mostly receded, their populations see less incentive to get jabbed. There are a variety of reasons why these governments also often find it hard to accept that the virus will, eventually, circulate in their populations.
First, they have expended significant resources and effort in suppressing Covid-19. The ‘sunk cost bias’ means these governments do not want to feel their previous efforts have been wasted; they are therefore more likely to persist with harsh suppression to maintain or achieve zero new cases than to accept, or adapt to, Covid-19 becoming endemic.
Second, governments are loss averse: they care more about avoiding losses than pursuing gains. In places where new cases are down to very low numbers, even one new case is considered a loss (hence, mainland China’s obsession with zero infections). Opening up the economy is viewed as a gain that is weighted much less. Related to this is that decision-makers have a diminishing sensitivity to ever larger losses. As economic losses mount, decision-makers may have become insensitive to them. But in the places that have had zero (or close to zero) cases, even a handful of new cases is viewed as unacceptable.
Third, there is the ‘status quo bias’. Now that suppression is the status quo in these places, it is very risky for officials to propose anything but a maintenance of, or quick reversion to, stringent measures whenever there is a spike in cases. If they fail to do this and the subsequent surge in cases reveals they had erred, they would be punished by an unforgiving public. Meanwhile, sticking to the status quo is virtually risk-free: even if they are found later to have been too risk-averse and should have loosened the restrictions earlier, no one is punished for excessive conservatism.
More at https://tinyurI.com/52cxam67
