McKinsy: Virus not lockdowns kill economy

Another one for the virus psychos, via McKinsey:

On March 23, 2020, McKinsey introduced the twin imperatives of safeguarding our lives and our livelihoods and a nine-scenario framework to describe potential economic and COVID-19 outcomes (Exhibit 1). At the time, we wrote that the best combined outcomes depended on a rapid and effective public-health response that controlled the spread of the novel coronavirus within two to three months. Similarly, in May, we wrote that crushing uncertainty by reducing the virus spread to near zero was likely the big “unlock” for most economies.

We strive to provide individuals with disabilities equal access to our website. If you would like information about this content we will be happy to work with you. Please email us at: [email protected]

Today, only a handful of countries seem to have placed the virus under control. (Economic-policy responses have been strong in many regions; most have been swift and effective enough to largely rule out the “first column” of scenarios.) Practically speaking, only countries that have already placed the virus under control can plausibly realize a “first-row outcome” (scenario A3 or A4) that lifts GDP to 2019’s year-end level or better by the end of 2020. Absent a widely available COVID-19 vaccine, most other countries are likely facing a “second-row outcome” (scenario A1 or A2), which means a one- to two-year delay in economic recovery. Global executives seem to agree; as our July survey shows, their pessimism is growing.

The arithmetic is straightforward. Countries are starting to report estimates of second-quarter GDP. Germany and the United States have registered 10.6 percent drops since the fourth quarter of 2019, while Spain and the United Kingdom have reported almost unimaginable declines of 22.7 and 22.1 percent, respectively. From this trough, growth would need to average 5 to 12 percent for two consecutive quarters to return GDP to the level at which it started the year.

Our new research looking for visible indicators of economic activity that would suggest such a rebound in growth finds them only in the countries that have successfully placed the virus under control. The evidence heavily suggests that a multifaceted public-health response that goes well beyond a simple transient lockdown is a necessary first step to restore confidence and create the conditions for growth.

It won’t be cheap: the cost of getting the virus under control is likely measured in the billions, or perhaps hundreds of billions, of dollars. But it is also clear that the opportunity cost of waiting is almost surely measured in unknown thousands of lives and trillions of dollars. The impact of delay is not linear. For every three months we delay in getting the virus under control, we push back the return of GDP to precrisis levels by about six months. Time is the enemy of both lives and livelihoods.

What does it take to restart growth?

The novel coronavirus and subsequent lockdowns have halted economic activity in nearly unprecedented ways: the only events that similarly brought local economic activity to a sudden stop are currency crises, such as the 1994 Mexican peso crisis and the 1997 Asian currency crisis. There are no global comparable precedents since World War II. The economic impact has been dramatic, and it seems reasonable to assume that lifting lockdowns would provide a proportional stimulus. However, the facts now show that the ultimate economic impact is not driven solely by lockdowns, whose economic effects have been highly varied. Lifting lockdown restrictions may not by itself be sufficient to restart growth.

Our analysis shows that the actual or expected drop in GDP through June of this year across Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries is not as tightly correlated with the stringency of societal lockdowns, or their length, as one might think.1 Further, the volatility of the GDP decline in those countries is three times larger than the volatility of lockdown stringency. Variations in lockdown stringency appear to explain only part of the pandemic’s different effects on economic growth (Exhibit 2).

We strive to provide individuals with disabilities equal access to our website. If you would like information about this content we will be happy to work with you. Please email us at: [email protected]

Similarly, detailed academic research using high-frequency data found no significant difference in employment and consumer spending between the US states that maintained longer lockdowns versus those that relaxed orders early (Exhibit 3).2 And an analysis of foot traffic at about 2.25 million businesses across the United States found that after controlling for local mortality rates, the differences in local lockdown restrictions accounted for only seven percentage points of the average 60 percent drop in local consumer foot traffic.3

We strive to provide individuals with disabilities equal access to our website. If you would like information about this content we will be happy to work with you. Please email us at: [email protected]

It appears that more is going on than national or regional differences in industrial structure and government policy responses. Other factors are at work. As Germany’s central bank observed in June, “The behavior of consumers—and enterprises—became increasingly cautious. Rising uncertainty, including with regard to income prospects, subdued the propensity to spend, even on many goods that were not subject to lockdown.”4 That was anticipated by academic research, which estimated that the “uncertainty shock” generated by the COVID-19 pandemic would likely account for around half of the fall in US GDP in 2020.5

McKinsey’s new consumer research found that more than half of consumers say they are “cautious” or “uncomfortable” about reengaging in their daily routines.6 The research also pinpointed the factors that would make that group feel comfortable about reengaging. Around three-quarters of respondents are looking for structural solutions, such as COVID-19 vaccines and treatments. Only around 30 percent say they feel safer when government restrictions are lifted. Three other indicators would help, they say: seeing people wearing masks (75 percent), knowledge that the number of new cases is going down in their area (65 percent), and a determination from national public-health leaders that it is safe to reengage (56 percent).

The inescapable conclusion is that the uncertainty surrounding COVID-19 and its associated health risks has caused many individuals, households, and businesses to opt out of normal activity—even if no formal restrictions are in place. Eliminating that uncertainty is essential to restart growth.

Getting the virus under control

Building public confidence requires limiting the spread of the novel coronavirus and creating conviction that public-health measures will continue to be effective. To be confident, the public needs evidence of the following:

  • New case counts are low, and testing is sufficiently widespread for official counts (and related indicators such as the rate of positive tests) to represent accurately actual conditions.
  • The number of serious COVID-19 cases that require hospitalization can be effectively handled by the health system without impairing its capacity to deliver normal medical treatment.
  • Communication about health interventions by leaders is credible, consistent, and provided sufficiently in advance to let families and the public and private sectors plan.
  • Public-health measures are delivered effectively and are sufficient to prevent increases in transmission.
  • Public-health interventions, including those deployed for high-risk and vulnerable populations, do not structurally prevent economic recovery.

The importance of getting the virus under control for restoring economic activity is now widely recognized. In a July policy statement, the European Central Bank warned that “the global outlook remains dominated by the evolution of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic….[The] combination of the easing of containment measures and the increase in new COVID-19 cases in many countries renders the global recovery highly uncertain.”7

Similarly, the Federal Open Market Committee, which sets monetary policy in the United States, wrote for the first time in its July 29th policy statement that “the path of the economy will depend significantly on the course of the virus. The ongoing public health crisis will weigh heavily on economic activity, employment, and inflation in the near term, and poses considerable risks to the economic outlook over the medium term.”8 When Jerome H. Powell, chair of the US Federal Reserve Board, was asked why that sentence was included, he replied that “the most central fact or the most central driver of the path of the economy right now, is the virus. … So it’s such an important sentence.”9

Confidence is necessary for growth

The recipe to achieve public confidence and establish the five beliefs we described has been tested in many countries, is now largely well-known, and takes about 12 weeks to enact effectively. Countries that have restored confidence—or are close to doing so—have seen economic activity return or begin to return to precrisis levels. Many analysts, including those at McKinsey, are watching indicators that might signal the return of economic activity well before official GDP, a notoriously delayed indicator, are published. Among those that we have studied, we find that “discretionary mobility” (defined as consumer activity in retail and entertainment, groceries and pharmacies, transit stations, and workplaces) neatly captures the choice to reengage in commercial activities. When paired with analyses of novel-coronavirus progression and virus-testing activity, we can see clearly how different strategies to get the virus under control have produced vastly different economic outcomes.

Exhibit 4 shows a synthesis of results from representative countries pursuing one of the two main strategies: the near-zero-virus and balancing-act paths.10 It also shows results from representative countries that are transitioning from the balancing-act to the near-zero-virus strategy.

We strive to provide individuals with disabilities equal access to our website. If you would like information about this content we will be happy to work with you. Please email us at: [email protected]

Countries on the near-zero-virus path radically reduced viral spread, minimizing the chances of transmission and making it easier to control flare-ups as they occur. Leaders of those countries have built public confidence, and the public has responded by resuming economic activity, as seen in the rise of discretionary mobility to precrisis levels. The countries using the near-zero-virus strategy are likely headed for a first-row outcome—likely, scenario A3 or A4.

Countries on the balancing-act path have pursued a strategy that entails stabilizing the numbers of patients within the capacity of their healthcare systems while accepting higher virus prevalence, more frequent flare-ups, and the possibility of more economically restrictive public-health interventions. Under those circumstances, country leaders have found it more challenging to build and sustain public confidence. Discretionary mobility remains about 40 percent below precrisis levels. The countries using the balancing-act strategy may end up facing a second-row outcome, such as scenario A1.

The cost of delay

It is conceptually possible for a well-executed balancing act to keep the novel coronavirus under control, especially if healthcare innovations can reduce virus-related acute hospitalizations and mortality rates and if adaptive business innovations can enable productivity despite public-health restrictions. But no balancing act has thus far succeeded in the COVID-19 crisis.

Some of the largest eurozone countries started with the balancing-act strategy and then transitioned to the near-zero-virus one. By transitioning, those countries have largely controlled the virus (although more slowly than those that opted for the near-zero-virus strategy from the outset did, and they still face some flare-ups). Countries that have transitioned are raising discretionary mobility close to precrisis levels and have “won the right” to hope for a better economic outcome, such as scenario A2 or even scenario A3.

Countries that are currently pursuing the balancing-act path could transition to a near-zero-virus strategy and restore public confidence by the end of 2020 if they act quickly. Economic activity would remain muted temporarily, and those countries would need to invest tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars in direct costs, such as those for COVID-19 testing, tracking, and tracing—costs that are distinct from payroll and business support. But the opportunity cost could also be immense. We estimate, for example, that for every three months’ delay in getting the virus under control across OECD countries, the recovery of GDP to precrisis levels could be delayed by as much as six months (Exhibit 5).

We strive to provide individuals with disabilities equal access to our website. If you would like information about this content we will be happy to work with you. Please email us at: [email protected]

Compared with January 2020 (precrisis) expectations, OECD countries could lose approximately $10 trillion in cumulative GDP by 2024. That’s an average figure across the A1, A2, and A3 scenarios. The differences among scenarios are even more striking: if a country were to end up in an A1 scenario, its losses could be 5.5 times larger than if had been able to navigate to an A3 scenario (Exhibit 6).

There are countless examples of unexpected shocks that have resulted in long periods of economic dislocation. The global financial crisis of 2008 hit the eurozone hard. The initial impact on GDP was only around one-third as damaging as that of the COVID-19 pandemic, yet it took seven years for eurozone GDP to return to 2008 levels. Even by the end of 2015, Italy’s GDP was still 8 percent below its 2008 level, Spain’s was 3 percent lower, and Greece’s was 27 percent lower. There is still time for countries pursuing a balancing-act strategy to increase their chances of achieving significantly better outcomes for lives and livelihoods.

Suck it up, psychos.

David Llewellyn-Smith

Comments

  1. By your own data, Lockdowns make no difference to GDP or virus mortality

    but you justify them so they can hand more unwarranted and unnecessary power to governments and police forces , in a completely undemocratic fashion?

    In any case I couldn’t give two f’s about GDP
    I value quality of life, liberty and democracy

    Who is the psycho here ?

    • Democracy the way we operate it, and even more so the way the US operates it is only a facade designed to give you the sense your not being ruled….

      As for Liberty and Quality of life, they are granted to you under a social contract, if you cant honour the contract then chaos thrives, I wonder how your liberty and Quality of life taste when that gets out of hand…. See the US for example….

  2. Virus not lockdowns kill economy
    Agree. In fact I would strongly argue that lockdowns are virtually non-existent in the absence of virus.
    Hence, it must be the virus.
    QED

    • By that logic get rid of the Judes and you get rid of antisemitism.

      Lockdowns aren’t an essential effect of the virus.

      • FAIL!
        (1) in Logic: for not understanding the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions.
        (2) in Common Sense: for not understanding sarcasm.
        But, yes, just play the antisemite card…

  3. “Virus psychos” – our running away from nature has a tendency to make us more fragile.
    In the modern era: falling sperm counts, rising autism, rising eyesight defects etc. Is the human choice not to be locked down, pumped with vaccines, ultra medicated, quarantined and corralled, stuffed with chemical additives to food and water, and surrounded by plastics not an equally valid choice?

    Yes advancements in hygiene, medicine and nutrition have delivered dividends in health and lifespan to date..
    ..and so too might gene editing, integration of tech into the human body (etc) in the future.
    ..but it is more risky for all humanity to go that way, or be forced along those lines, than to have some go a different and more natural way. Nature pursues multiple pathways to survival, because multiple pathways offer more resilience overall, in the face of novel threats.

    The Amish on current trajectories are sustainable. White Australians are not.
    The more people flee nature, the less they retain an awareness that following its precepts is crucial to long-term survival.
    Yes it SHOULD be possible to have the best of both worlds, but what is interesting is that does not often empirically seem to be the case.

    As the power of technocracy rises (and MASS democracy), it will become ever more critical for places/zones to be allowed to exist for people to dissent. It is that or absolute tyranny.

    I don’t mourn that people insist they should be able to go their own way, it kindles hope that we all won’t be forced down one path, over the rights of ‘many, but a minority’ to refuse.

  4. COVID tax on over 65's

    I support the path we went down shutting borders and aiming for elimination.

    6 months ago we were seeing the horror scenes of Milan and didn’t know anything about this virus.

    The more devastating the virus has been the worse economic growth has been.

    Now that we have achieved elimination more or less in most states I think we should stay the course for the time being.

    Let’s see how the virus behaves in a full northern winter.

    If it stays under control as it is now in the US and most of Europe, I think we open the borders come April and just live with the virus.

    The reality is the virus is not nearly as deadly as we feared.

    In countries where the virus is endemic it’s not worth trying to eliminate it. Even Victoria will get to the point where it’s no longer worth chasing elimination.

  5. If you think lockdowns are based on science you’ve been played by the CCP. You can see evidence of CCP social media campaign pushing for Victorian lockdown on Twitter right now.

    One of the top accounts for hashtag #ThanksDan is @PRGuy17. @PRGuy17 account was created March 2020 (i.e., near start of pandemic). 8400+ tweets since then. Bio w/ Simpsons cartoon profile pic says “A PR guy. Lives in Melbourne, works in Canberra.” but no links to prove bio is authentic. Basically all tweets from this account either praise Andrews’ lockdown or bash his critics. How can this account be anything other than a bot?!

    @PRGuy account is frequently retweeted by @iamgrooot87. Brand new account (created September 18 2020). First tweet says “New profile photo” in Chynese.

    Repeat this scenario millions of times across all major social media platforms to understand why there’s such widespread support for hard Wuhan style lockdowns.

    • Biggest PsyOps in history. Remember the twitter videos showing people collapsing in the street/on trains, welded in their homes, mass spraying. Makes you wonder.

  6. I sincerely hope that when the lock down cheerleaders look back on this period they can stand up proudly and say to their children –
    I was instrumental in making sure you always have to wear a mask outside, are not allowed to travel overseas, are forced to be vaccinated and have no worries because all your decisions about your health are made by the state, I’m sorry if you went out without your papers and were beaten and pepper sprayed by what used to be the police service but you’ll remember next time because in the process I might have saved a few 85 year olds from dying a few months earlier.

    • Seriously Tightwad, that is quite dramatic.

      always have to wear a mask outside – only in Stage 4 Victoria
      are not allowed to travel overseas – worldwide
      are forced to be vaccinated – forced is speculation but less trenchant parallels are everywhere e.g. vax no jab no x
      all your decisions about your health are made by the state – no, not even close
      were beaten and pepper sprayed – arrest by force has happened a few times for restrictions breaches, as occurs with many other offences now and in normal times.

      Freedom is restricted, granted. I’ve lived it longer than the official restrictions have been in place.

      • The new normal. You’ve given away your freedom for the perception of a little temporary safety, now you have to live with it.
        Luckily I’m old so hopefully won’t have to watch this degenerate further down this path as bankrupt governments become ever more draconian as they cling to power.
        Only yourselves to blame when you look back at how life used to be.
        First they came for the communists but I wasn’t a commie so I didn’t care….

        • But there is no reason to think this is the new normal and every reason to accept that it’s transitory. Our household volunteered to impose more severe restrictions than that imposed by law for co-morbidity health reasons. It has been 6 months of exhausting hyper-vigilance. I’m looking forward to freedom and getting things back to some normality especially with school back next term; home schooling is hard on parents and harder on children.

  7. Jumping jack flash

    Just keep the debt flowing and growing by whatever method necessary and the recovery will be here soon. Virus, lockdown, whatever, all will have minimum impact on the recovery.

    When the correct amounts of debt that are required are available and people are eligible for them, people will find a way to spend it.

    A few more billion debt dollars should do the job.
    We’ll be back to 2006 before we know it!

  8. It is good the virus has passed and everything is over and that dispassionate analysts like McKinsey can trawl through the data and present the final story now it is a distant memory.
    Hope you are applying a little more critical thought to the MB Fund investments (you have some of my money at the moment) than the ongoing car crash that is MB COVID analysis.
    Even a cursory examination shows the NZ GDP figure is an (under)estimate of its true GDP fall so what value the graph if the figures in it are inaccurate projections for some countries?

  9. You guys have gone “full r3tard” on trump and Vic lockdowns. Please go back to the good old days of objectivity, it’s what made MB different from the rest of the MSM and so great. You guys are dulling your edge to your own detriment.