Countries have sought to stop the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) by severely restricting travel and in-person commercial activities. Here, we analyse the supply-chain effects of a set of idealized lockdown scenarios, using the latest global trade modelling framework. We find that supply-chain losses that are related to initial COVID-19 lockdowns are largely dependent on the number of countries imposing restrictions and that losses are more sensitive to the duration of a lockdown than its strictness. However, a longer containment that can eradicate the disease imposes a smaller loss than shorter ones. Earlier, stricter and shorter lockdowns can minimize overall losses. A 'go-slow' approach to lifting restrictions may reduce overall damages if it avoids the need for further lockdowns. Regardless of the strategy, the complexity of global supply chains will magnify losses beyond the direct effects of COVID-19. Thus, pandemic control is a public good that requires collective efforts and support to lower-capacity countries.

Recent increases in the frequency and scale of wildfires worldwide have raised concerns about the influence of climate change and associated socio-economic costs. In the western U.S., the hazard of wildfire has been increasing for decades. Here, we use a combination of physical, epidemiological, and economic models to estimate the economic impacts of California wildfires in 2018, including the value of destroyed and damaged capital, the health costs related to air pollution exposure, and indirect losses due to broader economic disruption cascading along with regional and national supply chains. Our estimation shows that wildfire damages in 2018 totaled $148.5 (126.1-192.9) billion (roughly 1.5% of California's annual GDP), with $27.7 billion (19%) in capital losses, $32.2 billion (22%) in health costs, and $88.6 billion (59%) in indirect losses. Our results reveal that the majority of economic impacts related to California wildfires may be indirect and often affect industry sectors and locations distant from the fires (e.g., 52% of the indirect losses-31% of total losses-in 2018 were outside of California). Our findings and methods provide new information for decision-makers tasked with protecting lives and key production sectors and reducing the economic damages of future wildfires.

Countries around the world have sought to stop the spread of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) by severely restricting travel and in-person commercial activities. Here, we analyse the economic footprint of such “lockdowns” using detailed datasets of global supply chains and a set of pandemic scenarios. We find that COVID-related economic losses are largely dependent on the number of countries imposing lockdowns, and that losses are more sensitive to the duration of a lockdown that its strictness—suggesting that more severe restrictions can reduce economic damages if they successfully shorten the duration of a lockdown. Our results also highlight several key vulnerabilities in global supply chains: Even countries that are not directly affected by COVID-19 can experience large losses (e.g., >20% of their GDP)—with such cascading impacts often occurring in low- and middle-income countries. Open and highly-specialized economies suffer particularly large losses (e.g., energy-exporting Central Asian countries or tourism-focused Caribbean countries). Supply bottlenecks and declines in consumer demand lead to especially large losses in globalized sectors such as electronics (production decreases of 13-53% across our scenarios) and automobiles (2-49%). Although retrospective analyses will undoubtedly provide further policy-relevant insights, our findings already imply that earlier, stricter, and thus shorter lockdowns are likely to minimize overall economic damages, and that global supply chains will magnify economic losses in some countries and industry sectors regardless of direct effects of the coronavirus.

No abstract

No abstract