‘’A Brookings Economic Studies and Global Economy & Development Briefing Assessing the Impact of Pandemic Flu’‘
From the Website:
“Event Information
Health experts are concerned that a pandemic influenza could kill millions of people worldwide and cripple the global economy. As governments spend millions of dollars to stockpile medicines and plan emergency responses, what are the critical factors that should be considered for an effective response? How will people behave when faced with the threat and how might their actions alter the course of a pandemic? How would the global economy be affected and which countries would be hit hardest?
On October 19, Brookings scholars will address the potential impact of a pandemic flu worldwide. Featured speakers include Joshua Epstein, senior fellow, and modeler for the National Institutes of Health; and Warwick McKibbin, nonresident senior fellow, professor of international economics at The Australian National University and professorial fellow at the Lowy Institute for International Policy. Carol Graham, senior fellow and co-director, Center on Social and Economic Dynamics, and professor, School of Public Policy, University of Maryland, will make opening remarks and moderate the discussion.
An audience question and answer session will follow remarks.”
A full transcript of the proceedings is at the Website:
51 pages, but fascinating reading.
Thank you for posting this important piece of the pie, that we all partake of. Knowing how the BIGGIES in the business world view the flu pandemic is vitally important. Again thank you
Two things jumped out at me. First, the fact that modeling shows that if the USA suspends international passenger flights (not domestic, or international cargo flights), they can potentially delay the pandemic by weeks while taking a relatively minor hit to GDP. That would be bad news for Canada (not to mention Mexico) if such a policy is implemented by the US gov’t. Thousands of Canadians cross that border to work, not just to shop or go sight seeing.
Secondly, the potential withdrawal of money from developed countries that would experience the most casualties and hence economic and social disruption. The flight of capital from the Third World to the relative stability of the less hard hit Northern hemisphere. When you look at it that way, a pandemic would be a net gain situation for the First World. It’s so Darwinian…
Whoops, meant to say “the potential withdrawal of money from developing countries”.
“When you look at it that way, a pandemic would be a net gain situation for the First World. It’s so Darwinian…”
Hi Ottawan. I am not sure in what context you make the above statement. The third world knows how to live without gasoline, without hydro, they grow their own food, many of the countries don’t require extensive heating with fossil fuels for 4 months of the year. They are immune to many water borne organisms and they are acclimatized to losing family members and communtiy members and children from disease etc.
I am pretty sure they will manage…I’m not quite sure how we will though…the first world may be hit a little harder than an upper echelon of economists might think! They might want to, in the future, consult with a little wider segment of society before they come to conclusion like this…
…and as far as those airplanes go…they should remember SARS in Toronto…The World Health Organization announced there was a new disease in China about ten days after the disease in question had been spreading from emergency rooms to hospitals to healthcare workers in Toronto Hospitals…when they announce the pandemic has started, H5N1 will be able to reach out and shake their hands.
Tom — I skimmed the transcript and to my cursory glance, they really were modeling economic impact of disease, loss of work days, loss of business (hotels losing customers) but didn’t take into account things like the utilities failing.
So Ottowan is referring to the economic gain to developed countries of money taken out of developing countries. I’m not sure, but that would be things like, if I had money invested in a sneaker company in Indonesia, I might sell the stock at the first sign of trouble, and use the money to buy stock in a country in the developed world.
Which is ridiculous, if I had any stock, I’d sell it right now and buy a woodburning stove.
Average Concerned Mom. I think the ones who should comment at this point in the conversation…should be Monotreme, Medical Maven, JWB and the others who have been discussing infrastructure.
In my opinion, the civilization buster we have been talking about may well be in the First World, not the Third World…
…in fact we may all be in the Third World at the end of this.
There was a report done last year by Sherry Fisk I think of a Canadian Bank…not sure which one. It should probably read parallel to the report mentioned above…I think it sounds a little more realistic.
Tom DVM – at 23:19
IMO, the big losers in a severe or very severe pandemic will be the megacities, whether they are in the First World or the Third World.
Today the five largest cities are Tokyo, Mexico City, Săo Paulo, New York City, and Mumbai (Bombay)
From National Geographic.
To my knowledge, none of these cities are doing any serious planning.
Monotreme. Thanks.
Tom and Monotreme This part was to me the most important or all. as it spells out the unknowns and the real concern of the power grid.
<Snip>
So my question to you is have you really taken a look at how serious the infrastructure and ability to continue operating infrastructure would be for economic impact?
MR. McKIBBIN: In fact, we do have energy in our modeling framework and the energy shocks are taken into account. Obviously, they are very coarse because we are talking about the United States, we are talking about a single energy sector which comprises natural gas, coal, oil, et cetera, so it is very rough, but we do take into account changes in the demand and supply of energy in the way that we formulate the problem.The sorts of issues you are talking about really are the same kinds of issues that the financial community always asks me about. These things could happen in a week or 2 weeks or 5 weeks, but it is unlikely for a whole year that the energy system in a country will close down. It may happen, in which case we have completely underestimated the consequences.
But the numbers we get are so big that to me we have underestimated a lot of stuff, and if you believe our numbers, you should be investing a lot in either preparedness for the outcome in the sorts of issues you are talking about, having a strategy for responding so that you do not get a major closure, or in preventing the disease in the first place by investing large resources into the public health systems of the countries where this thing is going to come from which is likely to be the Southeast Asia and Southern China.
But I agree, you can do any scenario you like, and they get a lot scarier than the ones I put up. I am being very conservative.
<Snip>
Boy, I would sure like to ask McKibben to advise what he REALLY thinks, off the record……he’s aware that he is “being very conservative.” What would one of his ‘scarier’ scenarios be like???
TOM - that report was by Sherry Cooper - Nesbitt Burns (Bank of Montreal) the link was posted on the main wiki page - cant find it now, but it is here somewhere I am sure!!
“But the numbers we get are so big that to me we have underestimated a lot of stuff, and if you believe our numbers, you should be
investing a lot in either preparedness for the outcome in the sorts of issues you are talking about,
having a strategy for responding so that you do not get a major closure,
or in preventing the disease in the first place” (Buzzer sounds! Pick another category; still your turn..)
“by investing large resources into the public health systems of the countries where this thing is going to come from
which is likely to be the Southeast Asia and Southern China.” (Too little too late, too huge a problem changing how people live and farm and disobey rules, let alone getting governments to do the right things for the common good.)
gharris Thanks
re: “or in preventing the disease in the first place by investing large resources into the public health systems of the countries where this thing is going to come from which is likely to be the Southeast Asia and Southern China.”
FINALLY! Someone who realizes that pandemics could possibly be prevented with real effort. To
Tom DMV-I think many folks, esp. those who consider economic impacts of disaster, do not fully realize what an impact death has on survivors. If I lost my children, my friends etc., the desire to do what needs to be done to continue to survive becomes dull. That impact on society is immeasureable. American people expect to live a long life, to see their children grown, to even see their children’s children. It is a wonderful blessing that we take for granted.
But the numbers we get are so big that to me we have underestimated a lot of stuff
This reminds me, during one of the conferences I went to in January, a economist who was presenting on the possible impact of a pandemic did an extremely simplified extrapolation from SARS. I challenged him afterwards at a break by asking a few ‘what if’ questions, and he said, “Don’t aske me such questions, they keep me awake at night.” This was an elderly nice person who seemed to me to fully understand what the implications are but totally unable to ‘go there’ in his mind cos of the enormity of the problem, cos it was bigger than anything he’s ever had to think about.