A day after COVID-19 was declared a global pandemic, and weeks after the virus first spread out of China, political analysts and thinkers are still pondering what the future will look like after the initial spread is over.
One thing seems certain, the nature of our interconnected, global economy will be called into question.
When the virus first began shuttering factories in China, journalists were slow to realize all the potential fallout this move would have stateside. Days went by, and hospitals and pharmacies began issuing ration lists, including common drugs that might be used to treat the symptoms of the virus, that were expected to be in short supply in the coming months. Now? The Trump administration is expected to issue an executive order aimed at bringing pharmaceutical manufacturing back to American soil, but the damage is already done. It will be months if not years before drug companies can produce enough medicine to fill the gap left by the Chinese manufacturers, who provide around 80% of America’s supply.
And it’s not just medicine. Millions of American jobs rely on the distribution of goods in complicated supply chains that criss-cross national borders. As imports and exports freeze, so too will these industries. While they will almost assuredly recover from coronavirus, this disease has merely highlighted the risks inherent in maintaining such convoluted international distribution arrangements.
COVID-19 is a little more infectious than the flu, and slightly more deadly. What happens when the next super-spreading illness appears either with a greater infectiousness or lethality or even both?
We have two options.
The first consists in social distancing. The conveniences of the modern world allow many people to work from home, so perhaps that becomes the default option for white collar work rather than working in an office. Maybe schools close down during flu season and are in session during the summer instead. Perhaps we normalize the practice of wearing reusable face masks in public or limiting contact with strangers by shopping, banking, communicating, studying or even talking to loved ones online.
The other option is to rethink the way we live internationally. A sure-fire way to prevent diseases from spreading globally in the first place is to restrict international travel, limit exports, and tighten border security.
While it won’t stop diseases from originating, it will at the very least stop them from spreading worldwide and provide a more localized area of impact so that relief efforts can be more targeted.
The path we choose depends on what we value.
If we value community and people being able to live and work together in an embodied way that is congruent with both public and mental health, we might choose to end our current system of international interdependence.
But if we value an increase in the GDP, we’d all better find a job we can do online and do so fast.
