Supply chains create global benefits from improved vaccine accessibility.

Ensuring a more equitable distribution of vaccines worldwide is an effective strategy to control global pandemics and support economic recovery. We analyze the socioeconomic effects - defined as health gains, lockdown-easing effect, and supply-chain rebuilding benefit - of a set of idealized COVID-19 vaccine distribution scenarios. We find that an equitable vaccine distribution across the world would increase global economic benefits by 11.7% ($950 billion per year), compared to a scenario focusing on vaccinating the entire population within vaccine-producing countries first and then distributing vaccines to non-vaccine-producing countries. With limited doses among low-income countries, prioritizing the elderly who are at high risk of dying, together with the key front-line workforce who are at high risk of exposure is projected to be economically beneficial (e.g., 0.9%~3.4% annual GDP in India). Our results reveal how equitable distributions would cascade more protection of vaccines to people and ways to improve vaccine equity and accessibility globally through international collaboration.

Science policy frameworks for a post-pandemic green economic recovery

As current production and consumption patterns exceed planetary boundaries, many leaders have stressed the need to adopt green economic stimulus policies in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper provides an integrated multi-stakeholder framework to design an economic recovery strategy aligned with climate stabilisation objectives. We first employ quantitative energy and economic models, and then a multi-criteria decision process in which we engage social actors from government, enterprises and civil society. As a case study, we select green recovery measures that are relevant for a European Union country and assess their appropriateness with numerous criteria related to climate resilience and socio-economic sustainability. Results highlight trade-offs between immediate and long-run effects, economic and environmental objectives, and expert evidence and societal priorities. Importantly, we find that a ‘return-to-normal' economic stimulus is environmentally unsustainable and economically inferior to most green recovery schemes.

Socio-Economic Impacts of COVID-19 on Household Consumption and Poverty.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a massive economic shock across the world due to business interruptions and shutdowns from social-distancing measures. To evaluate the socio-economic impact of COVID-19 on individuals, a micro-economic model is developed to estimate the direct impact of distancing on household income, savings, consumption, and poverty. The model assumes two periods: a crisis period during which some individuals experience a drop in income and can use their savings to maintain consumption; and a recovery period, when households save to replenish their depleted savings to pre-crisis level. The San Francisco Bay Area is used as a case study, and the impacts of a lockdown are quantified, accounting for the effects of unemployment insurance (UI) and the CARES Act federal stimulus. Assuming a shelter-in-place period of three months, the poverty rate would temporarily increase from 17.1% to 25.9% in the Bay Area in the absence of social protection, and the lowest income earners would suffer the most in relative terms. If fully implemented, the combination of UI and CARES could keep the increase in poverty close to zero, and reduce the average recovery time, for individuals who suffer an income loss, from 11.8 to 6.7 months. However, the severity of the economic impact is spatially heterogeneous, and certain communities are more affected than the average and could take more than a year to recover. Overall, this model is a first step in quantifying the household-level impacts of COVID-19 at a regional scale. This study can be extended to explore the impact of indirect macroeconomic effects, the role of uncertainty in households' decision-making and the potential effect of simultaneous exogenous shocks (e.g., natural disasters).

Global supply-chain effects of COVID-19 control measures.

Countries have sought to stop the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) by severely restricting travel and in-person commercial activities. Here, we analyse the supply-chain effects of a set of idealized lockdown scenarios, using the latest global trade modelling framework. We find that supply-chain losses that are related to initial COVID-19 lockdowns are largely dependent on the number of countries imposing restrictions and that losses are more sensitive to the duration of a lockdown than its strictness. However, a longer containment that can eradicate the disease imposes a smaller loss than shorter ones. Earlier, stricter and shorter lockdowns can minimize overall losses. A 'go-slow' approach to lifting restrictions may reduce overall damages if it avoids the need for further lockdowns. Regardless of the strategy, the complexity of global supply chains will magnify losses beyond the direct effects of COVID-19. Thus, pandemic control is a public good that requires collective efforts and support to lower-capacity countries.