How Long Are We Going to Stay Indoors? Economic Resilience and Pandemic Duration
Written in early April 2020, this piece examines whether modern societies can sustain the social distancing necessary to control a pandemic comparable to the 1918 influenza. The writer argues that while historical evidence shows social distancing reduces deaths, our interconnected global economy makes prolonged lockdown psychologically and financially unsustainable—and calls for structural economic redesign to prepare for future pandemics.
History repeats itself they say and here we are exactly 100 years after the end of the Spanish flu pandemic which killed between 50 - 100 million people worldwide over a period of two years. We are 4-6 months into the COVID-19 pandemic and we are at 64,546 reported deaths so I doubt that this pandemic will come any close to the Spanish flu. Comparing both times, demographic shifts and economic restructuring have made containing a pandemic increasingly hard. The rise of globalization, urbanization, population increases, and improved transportation means can facilitate a virus’ spread.
In the wake of the Spanish flu in 1918, as is the case with the corona virus, public health interventions are the first line of defense in the absence of a vaccine. Social distancing is not a new measure as it was widely used and proven to be key to flattening the spread of the Spanish flu. By comparing fatality rates, timing, and public health interventions researchers realized that death rates were 50% lower in cities that implemented social distancing restrictions early on. The studies also showed that cities that relaxed social distancing restrictions too early saw second waves of the disease spread and spikes in deaths.
So obviously, social distancing is key to fighting the spread of the virus, but the question is, can we do it for two years if necessary?
I’ll like to imagine that 1918 had a less interconnected world where backyard farms were common, a dollar could go a long way and trade by barter was probably still in thing in many places. People knew and talked to their neighbors more often and there was a bigger sense of community living. In America, people went to theaters to watch silent movies, alcohol was illegal, and school attendance was very low; under 20%. Capitalism and individualism was not at its finest like we now have today. All this to say, social distancing could more easily be managed over a long period of time back then compared to what we have today because mobility and activity was limited.
Any-Ha!
We started with a two week semi lockdown which has now extended to a month. Had we done the lockdown the day the news of a possible pandemic broke out, we would have probably just had our borders only closed by now while we go about our regular businesses but of what use is spilled milk.
I have been reading on other pandemics that have hit the world in the past and how they came to end but from all indication, where no cure or vaccine was found, the diseases pretty much just infected everyone that got exposed and killed those whose immune systems could not fight it. Some of these pandemics lasted years because just like now, it was never clear when to return to normal. I talked about some cities in the U.S that lifted social distancing restrictions during the Spanish flu, when their death rates almost reduced to zero, only to see a spike immediately. So my question again is, can we maintain the social distancing restrictions for two years if we do not find a vaccine?
Which brings me to the hypothesis that the world will survive future pandemics not by advancements in healthcare but rather by economic innovation. A good part of my income comes from things that have to do with events. Nobody is buying the other services I offer in such times; people are just trying to survive. I have not brought in any income since the announcement of social distancing rules. I have in fact had four events cancelled. Basically, It is possible that for the duration of this pandemic, I make no income and that is the case for many other people and even worse for some. What if we have to go to 2 years of social distancing?
As it stands, we are not completely safe if everyone is not isolated into small groups. I might stay home but I live with someone who still has to work and who can likely bring back the disease to me. You can extrapolate from here and see all the ways in which one cannot be too careful. We have to go into full isolation for a given period of time that should be determined by experts and fight the disease that way. I don’t think coming out every two weeks to extend light social distancing restrictions by two more weeks is going to end well. We need data scientists working now to tell us the number of months we should expect to be on lockdown for us to better plan on how to survive.
When this pandemic is over, I want those who survive to start thinking about the next one and how to structure our economies in ways that will easily allow us to shutdown completely in the face of such pandemics since social distancing remains key in the absence of vaccines which I doubt we will be able to find easily every time.
- Tino Foy
The post was written roughly six weeks into the first COVID-19 lockdowns, when the pandemic's duration remained unknown and public health guidance emphasized the possibility of extended isolation. It reflects the early shock of sudden economic collapse: events cancelled, service income halted, the disorientation of being asked to choose between survival and contagion. The comparison to 1918 was natural; pandemic histories were being widely discussed as people tried to make sense of an unprecedented modern moment.
The piece stands out for refusing false comfort. Rather than assuming a quick return to normal, it takes seriously both the epidemiology (social distancing works, but requires discipline) and the economics (our systems are not designed for it). Four years on, its core question—how do we build economies that can absorb prolonged shutdowns without destroying themselves or their people?—remains urgent and largely unanswered. The call for proactive structural reform, not reactive crisis management, reads as prescient.