ABSTRACT
COVID-19 created a global public health and economic emergency. Policymakers acted quickly and decisively to contain the spread of disease through physical distancing measures. However, these measures also impact physical, mental and economic well-being, creating difficult trade-offs. Here we use a simple mathematical model to explore the balance between public health measures and their associated social and economic costs. Across a range of cost-functions and model structures, commitment to intermittent and strict social distancing measures leads to better overall outcomes than temporally consistent implementation of moderate physical distancing measures. With regard to the trade-offs that policymakers may soon face, our results emphasize that economic and health outcomes do not exist in full competition. Compared to consistent moderation, intermittently strict policies can better mitigate the impact of the pandemic on both of these priorities for a range of plausible utility functions.
