Several countries use shutdown strategies to contain the spread of the COVID-19 epidemic, at the expense of massive economic costs. While this suggests a conflict between health protection and economic objectives, we examine whether the economically optimal exit strategy can be reconciled with the containment of the epidemic. We use a novel combination of epidemiological and economic simulations for scenario calculations based on empirical evidence from Germany. Our findings suggest that a prudent opening is economically optimal, whereas costs are higher for a more extensive opening process. This rejects the view that there is a conflict with health protection. Instead, it is in the common interest of public health and the economy to relax non-pharmaceutical interventions in a manner that keeps the epidemic under control.

We develop a novel approach integrating epidemiological and economic models that allows data-based simulations during a pandemic. We examine the economically optimal opening strategy that can be reconciled with the containment of a pandemic. The empirical evidence is based on data from Germany during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Our empirical findings reject the view that there is necessarily a conflict between health protection and economic interests and suggest a non-linear U-shape relationship: it is in the interest of public health and the economy to balance non-pharmaceutical interventions in a manner that further reduces the incidence of infections. Our simulations suggest that a prudent strategy that leads to a reproduction number of around 0.75 is economically optimal. Too restrictive policies cause massive economic costs. Conversely, policies that are too loose lead to higher death tolls and higher economic costs in the long run. We suggest this finding as a guide for policy-makers in balancing interests of public health and the economy during a pandemic.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract