Dr. Balmukunda Regmi

The coronavirus outbreak was unexpected. All countries have managed the coronavirus crisis as per their capacity and management skills. The pandemic has tested the weaknesses and strengths of human society, national healthcare systems, the wisdom of different cultures and education systems. It has shown which attitudes and practices are more conducive to sustenance and promotion of public health. Already in progress are many in-depth analyses, comparisons, discussions, reviews and recommendations regarding the handling of the communicable virus, the infected people and the population at large. For sure, it has made a negative impact on the global economy. According to May 7 report of the Hamburg-based Statista, the GDP loss of major global economies is estimated at 4.5 per cent, meaning around US$ 3.94 trillion was lost in the year 2020.

Asymmetric impact
Despite much hyped efforts of concerned governments and authorities to mitigate the impact of the virus, the outcome is far from uniform. The disparities are mainly of five types: country- or region-specific, sector- and profession-wise, and related to technical advancement, economic resilience of the affected families, and lately the vaccination.
China, the early epicentre of the coronavirus outbreak, managed the crisis promptly and efficiently. It has become a model in responding to health crises and protecting the economy. Highly urbanised yet disciplined economies like Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Oceania, Canada and Cuba have been able to contain the virus and continue their economic activities. Countries with high populations like Ethiopia, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Nigeria managed the crisis relatively well. The USA, India, Mexico, Iran, Indonesia, South Africa, many European and South American countries have suffered heavily in terms of human casualties.
The perception of the spread of coronavirus and fatalities it caused was not the same in different countries or regions, cultures and regimes, which shaped their response to the virus and its effects. Those giving top priority to disease preventions took strict measures to contain the virus relatively early, putting aside economic and recreational interests, succeeded in minimising its disastrous impact. Canada and the East Asian countries and regions belong to this category. Countries like the USA and Brazil were unwilling to compromise economic and recreational interests, creating a breeding ground for virus to proliferate at an alarming rate. How different approaches the political leadership can take on infection control is best illustrated by the policies adopted by former US president Donald Trump and sitting President Joe Biden.
Citing cultural variations among countries, Berkeley Public School student Jessica Newfield summarises in December 10 news: “Some countries emphasised more on how to continue to live despite the virus while others focused more on how to collectively prioritise ending its spread”. Discipline is an important factor. Making a comparison, Amanda Coletta writes in the July 15 issue of The Washington Post, “The Canadian people have been less divided and more disciplined. Some provinces and territories could have locked down sooner, analysts say, but once measures were announced, they were strict, broadly uniform and widely followed”.
Mortality rates of the infected people with symptoms reflect the relative vulnerability of the health systems of those countries and regions. Amidst the lack of effective cure of the infection, the various life support measures such as intensive care with ventilators, plasma therapy and medicines have proved very useful. Lack of oxygen, ventilators, masks, personal protective equipment and the like has exposed the weakness of our health systems. The world witnessed compromises, price hikes and black-marketing when there was competition to get their supplies.
Different parts of the same country have experienced the impacts of the virus differently. In the early days of infection, all countries, unitary or federal, acted uniformly, activating the central to local political and health institutions to create synergetic impact. As more was known of the virus, even unitary countries adopted different responses in different parts of the country, tailoring to the actual situation there.
While the overall productivity decreased, the market has remained stable or even expanded for most of the consumer staples, healthcare services and products, information technology, especially online service providers. Citing the UN trade and development experts, the May 3 UN news states that the e-commerce sector saw a “dramatic” rise in its share of all retail sales, from 16 per cent in 2019 to 19 per cent in 2020, reaching USD 26.7 trillion. Airlines and passenger transportation services, hotels, party palaces, celebrations and sports, tourism and travel, child care and kindergartens have suffered the most.
Not all professionals were equally impacted. The corona crisis increased the demand for health workers, police and other security personnel, ICT technicians, cleaners, waste management workers and cleaners, with subsequent increase in their income. Members of families with less economic resilience had to go out of home to earn livelihood. Most vulnerable were those working in informal labour markets, away from home, without sufficient savings and occupational insurances.
An alarming gap exists in vaccination between rich and poor countries. As of 27 May, 85 per cent of corona vaccine that have gone into arms worldwide have been administered in high- and upper-middle-income countries. Only 0.3 per cent of doses have been administered in low-income countries. While vaccination rate in the US and other rich countries has reached somewhere between 60 to 95 per cent, only 2.1 per cent of Africans have received at least one dose.

Economic impact
April 28 report of the Asian Development Bank states Nepali economy saw a 1.9 per cent contraction in 2020. Citing the Economic Survey, the Finance Minister has said that the Nepali economy is to shrink by 2.13 per cent in the current fiscal year. In Nepal, the banking sector has made impressive gains. Compared to that during the first nine months of the previous fiscal year, the 27 banks increased their profits by 15.5 per cent reaching over Rs 50 billion. Overall, the insurance, finance and telecommunications sector and Nepal Oil Corporation have made profit.
A telephone survey conducted in April by the Nepal Rastra Bank (NRB) shows all industries and service providers dealing with electricity, gas, water and communications had all returned to normal, but many medium and big industries were suffering a loss and 4.1 per cent of them were shut down. The economic loss to schools, service sector, garment industries, automobile traders, printing industry and the informal sectors has surpassed that of the 2015 earthquakes and economic blockade.

(Dr. Regmi is a professor at Tribhuvan University. bmregmi@gmail.com)