Question

what externality implications on public health and the population-at-large of low-wage workers being disproportionately affected by COVID-19?

Answer 1

Answer:

Health system:

The need for social protection and universal health care is apparent. But it takes time to design, developed and implement well-functioning social protection and healthcare systems and there is no obvious quick fix or one-size-fit-all solution. For the absence of a universal healthcare system, governments should, as a minimum short-term measure for a crisis of this scale, step up efforts so that people can get tested and treated. Any normal costs for such actions should be removed, particularly for those not in a position to pay. Measures, including sickness-, unemployment-, occupational injury- and survivor benefits are standard ingredients of a normal universal social protection system. In the absence of such, governments should consider short-term relief measure by, for example, scaling up schemes already available for formal sector workers and public civil servants. Other measures would include ad hoc stimulus packages to support low-income households through unconditional cash transfers as well as to provide small and medium-sized businesses with tax breaks and similar support. Governments across the region such as Cambodia, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Singapore and Thailand are introducing such measures. While these measures are well-intended, their effectiveness and impact will depend on their targeting principles and whether they build on other already existing measures.

A virus outbreak of this size is a rare event. Even in developed countries, health care systems, both public and private, are not equipped to deal with a formidable surge in patients. Having basic infrastructure and protocols in place, adequate numbers of trained professionals and well-established public health communication channels are essentials for responding to such an outbreak. Investing in quality primary health care is the cornerstone for achieving universal health care and the most cost-effective way for ensuring access to essential health care.

Impact on employment and welfare

The beverage, food and sugar industries have actively lobbied against diet-related taxation on foods and beverages. Although they have claimed that such taxation will lead to job losses, some of their estimates of the potential negative impacts on employment appear too high. In South Africa, for example, concerns about employment were the primary arguments against a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages. However, independent estimates of the potential effects of such a tax on employment, which considered development of alternate markets, were substantially lower than those quoted by industry actors. A recent analysis in the United States indicated that a sugar-sweetened beverage tax could actually increase employment overall, as consumers reallocate their spending and the government uses revenue from the taxation to generate employment.44 Subsidies designed to improve diets and health – particularly those applied to agricultural goods – are likely to be even more directly positive in their impact on employment.