|
Jun 24 2020 (IPS) - Sweden and Costa Rica
highlight how public policy matters.
The human and Economic Impact of COVID-19 will
be greater in Sweden than in Costa
Rica.
The impact of COVID-19 is estimated at
reducing Sweden’s
GDP in 2020 by 9.7%
and Costa Rica’s by
3.6%.
Through June 21– Sweden had
5,053 deaths compared to
Costa Rica’s 12.
As of July 22nd 2020
Sweden has recently done a U-Turn in Social Distancing
(probably more than is represented here)
Additionally, Sweden’s economy is much bigger and spends more on
health care than Costa Rica, dedicating 11.1 percent of its larger GDP to
public spending on its health care system compared to Costa Rica’s 7.3
percent of GDP. In both cases, these countries’ universal public health systems
are often cited as exemplary models in terms of the breadth and quality of
services provided to their populaces, especially in comparison to countries with
comparable levels of development.
The crucial element of distinction between the impact of COVID-19 in the two
countries can mainly be laid at the feet of their
public policies.
Sweden recorded its first COVID-19 case on January 22 and did not
record a second until February 26, when its infection “curve” began its upward
trend that our models indicate will reach its peak in late July with around
46,000 infections over 190 days.
Costa Rica’s first case was detected March 6, but given its policy response
we project its curve began to flatten in mid-April, just 35 days after the
outbreak was detected.
Both countries host large migrant population that appear to be less integrated
in to the health systems and have higher rates of infections than citizens.
It is also noteworthy that, while Costa Rica’s initial COVID-19 testing
policy was to test patients showing potential symptoms, Sweden restricted
its testing only to patients showing severe symptoms. Undetected cases not
reflected in national data are likely in both countries, but are not reflected
in our mathematical models. In any case, given how new COVID-19 is, no
universally accepted standard for testing exists.
Despite this, the wide gap in confirmed cases and deaths between the two
countries clearly shows a greater and more prolonged impact in Sweden.
Although we should be cautious in drawing conclusions, Costa Rica’s more
interventionist response and actions to control the
spread of the pandemic may very well explain the shorter time period
and flatter curve the lesser developed nation has recorded compared to its
highly developed counterpart.
Costa Rica’s COVID-19 response was to take quick action in an orderly
manner, starting with preventative public information
campaigns and the prompt introduction of
restrictive measures including the isolation of
patients and the implementation of social
distancing which culminated in a nationwide
quarantine that saw borders and
schools closed and
movement within the country highly
restricted.
Notoriously, Sweden went for a very different approach emphasizing
individual responsibility by advising citizens to practice social distancing
without restricting movement, only closing borders to non-Europeans and barring
gatherings of more than 50 people. The architect of Sweden’s COVID-19
policies has since conceded this response disproportionally affected most
vulnerable people like the elderly.
While the two countries enjoy very different development levels, both are seen
as leaders in their regions in the areas of social services and health care—both
provide their citizenry universal health coverage with infrastructure available
nationwide. And both follow similar policy goals and approaches to issues facing
future generations, especially with regard to climate change.
CLIMATE EMERGENCY
Both countries have enthusiastically joined 121 other nations in a concerted
and coordinated strategy to attain so-called “carbon neutrality” by 2050—in 2019
Costa Rica’s net per capita emissions were 1.61 tonnes while Sweden’s were 4.03
tonnes; the United States’ net per capita emissions were 16.5 tonnes. Sweden has
focused its emissions reduction policies on its energy and transport sectors,
while Costa Rica (with its abundant hydroelectric resources) is focusing on its
diesel-dependent transportation sector.
In both countries, the forestry sector- and its ability to remove or “sequester”
carbon from the atmosphere- plays a fundamental role in the short- and
medium-term efforts. But for both, the long-term solution lies in energy
efficiency by adopting measures to reduce emissions per kilowatt hour generated
and per kilometres travelled to decrease their use of fossil fuels.
Sweden has focused on emissions reductions in the energy sector, specifically by
reorienting production to so-called renewable sources including hydroelectric
and reducing fossil fuels and nuclear dependency. By 2030, Sweden’s energy
sector aims to reduce its emissions by 44 percent and its transportation sector
by 30 percent from 1990 levels.
With an emphasis on the forestry sector to attain their net emission goals, both
have been implementing parallel fire-prevention and control policies to avoid
the devastation wrought in other forest-dependent countries of late.
Fires in both Sweden and Costa Rica have occurred with less frequency and
intensity over the last decade as a result, according to NASA observations. That
is no guarantee that fires will not pose a threat in the future, but with
forestry potentially sequestering 37 percent of total emissions in Costa Rica
and projected to capture 18 percent in Sweden, both countries have established
similar fire prevention policies and administrative structures.
In Costa Rica, succeeded in phasing out fossil fuels in its electricity
generation and legal reforms helped push forest cover from 21 percent of the
country’s territory in 1996 to 54 percent in 2018 and its sequestration needs
will fall to 33 percent of emissions by 2050 or roughly one tonne or carbon per
person per year. Now, the country needs to transform its transportation into a
cleaner and more efficient one.
Sweden and Costa Rica can both attain carbon neutrality by 2050 if political
consensus remains unchanged. But with the impact of COVID-19 estimated at
reducing Sweden’s GDP in 2020 by 9.7 percent and Costa Rica’s by 3.6 percent,
attending to the immediate impact of the virus will be a higher political
priority than the high levels of investment needed for mitigating climate change
over the coming decades.
Combatting COVID-19 in the absence of a vaccine, as with confronting climate
change, will require international cohesion.
The wide gap in cases and deaths between Costa Rica and Sweden tragically
highlights that, as well as how real global public challenges like health and
environmental crises need government interventions.
SOURCE IPS NEWS
|
