Moving to level 2 will be no walk in the park
The Government is close to a decision on when New Zealand will shift from alert level 3 down to level 2. For a number of reasons, it may be more challenging than the shift from level 4 to level 3, as with each shift the risk grows faster than the reward.
The strategy so far is very clear, and straightforward. At alert level 4 we had just essential services, or working from home. The twin benefits of a quite stringent lockdown were to constrain transmission of the virus by minimising the amount of interaction among people in the workplace and socially, so protecting essential services from risks from non-essential activity.
That maximised both aspects of distancing — physical distancing by keeping people apart, and time distancing by reducing interaction long enough for the virus to be starved of new hosts. The major cost was the shutdown of much business activity, with loss of earnings and employment.
The shift to alert level 3 was relatively straightforward, as long as the timing was right. The economic benefits would flow without doubt, while the risk was seemingly diminishing with each passing day.
Moreover, level 3 has enabled the relatively lower-risk business activities to get up and running.
That allows for relatively strong gains in the value of business activity, with around three-quarters of jobs operating at some capacity while still managing risks in the workplace and in the social environment.
Critically, social distancing is maintained, in order to protect and support business activity for as long as possible, and give it a good chance of reestablishing.
Not all workplaces have the same risks of transmission. Those where most daily interaction by workers occurs within the workplace bubble have relatively lower risk.
Where interaction is both within the bubble and among a number of bubbles (“shared bubbles”) there is a higher level of risk, because more contacts are involved. Workplaces which are publicfacing with interactions with the community as customers imply a higher level of risk again. The size of the workplace is also important: More people means more interactions, and a greater chance of contact with a carrier.
Supported by social distancing, level 3 has seen a substantial increase in business activity. An estimated 620,000 workers have returned to the workplace, to join some 700,000 in essential activities and an estimated 600,000 working at home, to see a little more than 2 million active out of the total 2.7 million workers.
An estimated 75-77 per cent of economic activity in GDP terms is now able to function.
Alert level 2 is different. This shift is substantially higher risk. More relatively higher-risk activities will be operating again. Those businesses need to be sustained by interaction with the public. That increases transmission risks.
The shift could see a further 800,000 persons back in the workplace, although the increase could be as little as half of that if many prefer to still work from home.
And though the relative transmission risk will go up significantly, level 2’s expected rewards for economic activity are only about half of those achieved from the first shift. Level 4 to level 3 saw an estimated 24-26 per cent of economic activity restored. Level 3 to level 2 has an expected uplift of only 11-13 per cent.
There is nervousness from scientific experts about the risk of many more people in the workplace with some reduction in social distancing.
The speed with which things can go south again is well-evidenced, from many countries. Successes in limiting the spread of the virus are due to lockdowns and distancing; no vaccines or cures have emerged.
Which is why the scientific community is focused on the potential of the virus to spread across our community and economy, with little regard for the small number of new cases in the past few days.
And why the Government continues to be cautious, recognising clearly that the shift to level 2 is not just a walk in the park, but a decision carrying much higher risk than the shift to level 3.