All sources agree on the same thing: From now until the end of May / beginning of June, we will be in the global health and economy risking ‘everything for everything’.

‍

Regarding COVID-19, it will be the zenith of its exponential growth in the Americas, where the hospital emergency will be present from Canada to Argentina. At the same time, the return to ‘normality’ in China and Europe will show the real impact of isolation, with the images of the pandemic worldwide becoming (even more) dramatic. The numbers in lost lives, only in the United States, could exceed the 160,000 military personnel of this country who died during WWI.

‍

From the economic point of view, the gradual fall of SME’s due to the global lockdown will reach its highest point of indebtedness, while the almost null demand for O&G and the stock market panic ‘will do their thing’ with interest rates and foreign currencies exchanges, impacting the capacity of multinational FMCG’s and banks; that added to the stoppage of airplanes, ships, and hospitality, will make for the summer that several countries oscillate within an unemployment rate between 20 and 25%.

‍

And all this happens under confinement that ends up looking like a global version of Erwin Schrödinger’s ‘Cat Experiment’ (1935): Without the possibility of testing all of humanity, by this time we all end up acting as if we had and did not have the virus at the same time, which eventually makes people (from global leaders to average Joe’s) ask the awkward question about the legitimate utility of sacrificing the economic system.

‍

Positions around this moral debate include a repeatedly hearing premises that invite to think the situation under the impact and consequences of “the law of the fittest,” or on the basis that “without healthy people, there is no economy.” Both have been part of the eternal confrontation of Darwinist - Humanist philosophies, which during contemporary history, have characterized the debate narrative around issues such as abortion and euthanasia legalization, which is rarely conclusive because, in the end, are ‘simplistic’ perspectives to approach complex problems.

‍

Ergo, does not seem to be enough to understand this tension, since COVID-19 and its ‘health-economy’ implications have something that makes it unique. In essence, the decision made here not only affects the life of the individual who, for pleasure or need, goes out to work, but that of all his/her relates and strangers… concierge, mother, boss, cashier. Everyone.

‍

So the first implication to take into account of this moral debate, and the specific context in which it happens will be to understand that at this moment the rights, needs, and duties of the group prevail over the individual. But realizing that nowadays the ‘We’ rules over the ‘Me’ does not guarantee to half of the world’s population the subsistence (literally food) of their families, which today is in suspense.

‍

And any global/local leader can bear the economic and moral guilt of witnessing the vanishing of their workforce… although governments’ efforts in the EU, UK, US, and China estimate to spend 15-19% of their GDP to confront and save their citizens and businesses of this new ‘Depression,’ according to IMF, while in LatAm countries, the spending goal will be around 6%. It seems like a good time to ‘look and demand taxes’, because obviously, needs are deeper in Spanish.

‍

Who should go out? How many lives will worth for some to come out? Will it be possible to separate people who produce from those who do not? What sectors must continue to stay in their homes? (and of course a ‘reality doses’ for my friends in the LatAm corporate world: Forget about leaving your house! in most cases, it will be enforced by law) Which sectors should be ruled out because they significantly increase the risk of contagion?

‍

Some answers emerge… going out to work by social-economic level, gender, or business sectors. Because hunger urgency in blue-collar workers, small shops and Freelancers (yes, someone you know is going through this situation) does not wait, both in the pressure of employers to governments to stop the lockdown (at least in their industry), but also in the guilt and/or empathy of everyone who has enough resources to live the confinement without worrying, that is turning a massively focus towards goodness. Fantastic!

‍

Besides, hospital crisis and COVID-19 daily deceases, begins to show an additional moral implication: In New York City, worldwide pandemic epicenter nowadays, 69% of deaths are related to Latin and African American groups in lower / lower-middle socioeconomic levels, with higher levels of obesity, and less (or no) health insurance coverage.

‍

Inequality as a health filter calls into question many of the beliefs of this moral debate. A topic to take care of, studies developed by the Imperial College in London, under crossing economic cycles and medical records in more than 77 countries, reveals that 2008 crisis would contribute to an increase in cancer mortality of more than 500,000 people in the world, as a consequence of unemployment, healthcare cuts, and increased levels of stress and depression.

‍

In any case (and any scenario) the economic system basics must continue to exist in the most stable way possible (growing tomatoes, producing cheese and eggs, running water from the tap, stable internet signal, or boxes of cereal and toothpaste available in the store) because if not the lockdown / unlock down situation could get out of control, which is not convenient if at this moment society should focus on defending the present.

‍

As the debate continues, a possible alternative to this question comes from technology with the tracking process that Apple - Google - Facebook are beginning to develop. A concept from science fiction (or the beloved social media fans conspiracy theories) But at the same time so necessary to move on, that it possible that soon, not too distant future (months), society will be fully monitored to continue participating in the system. Or at least to be able to go outside and be / feel productive.

‍

Thus, planetary society will live the most challenging moment of COVID-19 under an ethical dualism (in the best style of Kant’s moral ‘Being / Should Being’), where both options -health and economy- are good, weak, necessary, and co-dependent.

‍

How this tension is resolved, ensuring that most people remain ethically calm, will depend on how quickly the disease spreads, another greater stop in the global economy, and mental health; always being aware that these decisions will cost lives, in weeks where the disease needs to get controlled.

‍