Foreword

(dated Friday, March 20th, 2020 @18h00)

This is a verbatim translation of our policy paper dated Saturday, March 14^th, 2020 @21h32. This seminal paper was written to serve as a foundation for a public policy for France first, and the world second.

Due to the urgency of the situation, some minor errors went uncorrected. Remember time was the essence…

It was sent to our relevant authorities; hence it explains some points that are for the sake of French policies and interests.

Next objective: Austerity post 2008 is over now, and for good.

We are at a crossroads and have the opportunity to make a significant contribution to tomorrow’s world. Let’s do it.

#1 Premises

If we do not eradicate the coronavirus, we will have to live with this new virus that threatens to weaken our open societies to a point that will lead us to the collapse feared by Jared Diamond.

The WHO has not been able to offer the world a vade mecum, a way forward, to contain the virus.

In this context, States are intervening in a disorderly, piecemeal fashion, without taking the true measure of the threat, in due time, without coordinating their efforts and sharing their experiences.

They are slow to act in the belief that they are protecting their economies, while their procrastination aggravates the problems.

We believe it is possible to eradicate the coronavirus. Here are our proposals for eradicating it in the shortest possible time, in the least destructive way for our open economies, and in a socially acceptable way.

#2 The virus

We have the first large-scale studies (10,000+ cases) that allow us to understand new aspects of the spread of the virus, although many elements still remain to be elucidated. Nevertheless, we believe that we have sufficient information to propose a timeframe and cost for the public policy we advocate.

The development of a vaccine, or a treatment, is bound to be a long way off. It does not provide an adequate response to a pandemic that is spreading at an exponential rate. It should be discarded in the short term and reserved as a last resort.

We know that 99% of those affected are no longer carriers beyond 14 days, the quarantine period recognized by the WHO seems adequate.

The convincing results obtained by the People’s Republic of China with the quarantine, despite all the mistakes made along the way (delays, denials, attacks to the medical profession…) suggest that this strategy has good hope of success.

The question is therefore not if, but how to implement it in the most effective way.

Most contaminations seem to occur before the patient develops symptoms. (between 67% and 87% in Wuhan, between 43% and 67% in Singapore). ((Case of Singapore a bit special given the systematic self-containment advocated by the authorities almost immediately, feedback from SARS)).

The difficulty is therefore to break this initial transmission during this incubation period. ((Knowing whether each patient transmits the virus to 2 or 2.5 people is interesting in terms of knowledge but is irrelevant in terms of public policy)).

#3 Infection

We have four cases.

1 • The patient hasn’t crossed the path of the virus. He or she is not contaminated, and does not contaminate (See Table #1, even in Wuhan the rate is very low and it is important to be factual without panicking).

2 • The patient has crossed the virus. He or she is a healthy carrier (studies suggest an incubation period (not sure of the term) of 5.1 days (slight differences between PRC 5.2 and Singapore 4.8, no incidence). The immune system defends itself; the virus is destroyed. The patient stops infecting. ((Very approximate statistics available))

3 • The patient crossed the virus. He or she develops symptoms, more or less strong. The immune system defends itself, the virus is destroyed. The patient stops infecting. ((Reported cases, approximate statistics because not all cases are tested, this does not affect the choice of policy))

4 • The patient crossed the virus. He or she develops symptoms and dies from it. And ceases to be a contaminant, not in the desired way… death can exceed 14 days since the contamination ((More reliable statistics, but without incidence for the choice of the policy)).

Table #1: Reported Mortality (March 14, 2020, @16:00)
Zone	Population	Cases	%	Deaths	†
Wuhan city	8 500 000
Hubei province	59 170 000
Chine (RPC)	1 441 000 000	80 824	5,61	3 189	0,22
South Korea	51 418 000	8 086	15,73	72	0,14
Italy	60 487 000	17 660	29,19	1 266	2,09
France	67 064 000	3 661	5,45	19	0,03
United Kingdom	67 886 000	1 1140	1,67	21	0,03
Germany	83 200 000	3 953	4,75	8	0,01
Spain	47 100 000	6 023	12,78	191	0,41
Cases per 100 000.

Given the exponential nature of the epidemic, even the slightest delay can have catastrophic consequences.

#4 Quarantine Strategies: Divide and conquer

Divide in space.

It is essential to proceed to a strict quarantine by zone (region or administrative division according to the country), for example in France our 90 metropolitan departments + DOM/TOM.

By strict, we mean house confinement except for essential activities (doctors, nurses, military and police officers in charge of locking the zones, or trucks delivering supermarkets. Stopping public transport. Closure and control of communication routes (air, motorways…).

Divide in time.

A second division is made in time. To counter the incubation period, the stop will be done by block of “fortnight”. The 5 working days can, must, become 9 by adding the adjoining weekends, that is to say: WE, WE, WD, WD, WD, WD, WD, WE, WE.

This way, the incubation monitoring period is extended without increasing the induced effects on the economy.

At the end of this first “week”, citizens either present symptoms and make themselves known, and must stay for another week, or must no longer present a risk.

This first week is followed by a second (WD, WD, WD, WD, WE, WE) where it is possible, or not, to relax the conditions of the quarantine (not very “profitable” risk wise).

An assessment at this stage allows the situation to be determined zone by zone.

Assuming that the spread has been contained in 80 out of 100 zones (low hypothesis) or 90 out of 100 zones (high hypothesis), after the first fortnight, a second fortnight and then a third can tackle it.

Table # 2: Pandemic control
# Zones	Success rate	D + 16	D + 30	D +44	Index
100	80 %	20 zones	4 zones	0,8 zones	124,8
100	90 %	10 zones	1 zone	0,1 zone	111,1
The index makes it possible to evaluate the cost, of a quarantine by fortnight.

As the zones are declared free, economic activity can be resumed in the zone to limit the economic impact (provide for additional measures for long-distance trucking, etc.).

And to devote more resources to eradicating the residual zones in the second and third fortnights.

After three cycles (i.e. 6 x 7 d + 2 d = 44 days), quarantine will normally have contained the spread. If a few cases remain in a zone, extend the quarantine period for one zone.

A country may be declared virus-free after an additional 14-day period without new cases.

The aim is therefore to act in concert per large area, and at the same time or almost simultaneously, so that air links can then be re-established later on.

The first suitable date that should not be missed is March 21st 2020.

SARS and MERS have been defeated. Let’s defeat Covid-19. 

#5 Financing

In economic terms, the slowdown in the absence of concerted action is prodigious; you only have to look at the stock markets to understand it. Because of a Trump’s tweet, the US stock exchanges losses $500 billion, one week of fall and the English stock exchanges lose £795 billion …

One week of GDP by definition is 2% of GDP, the lost activity can be estimated at 10% of this amount: the car bought on the following Monday rather than the Monday of the quarantine, and which will not be delivered before 8 weeks (depending on options) will hardly affect the car manufacturer’s long-term income. On the other hand, the customer of the restaurant will not go to lunch twice in a row…

In order to limit the economic breakdowns during and AFTER the crisis some courageous measures need to be taken. Take care of salaries (including health insurance and pensions) during the quarantine. For the deaf and hearing-impaired: the French Treasury (or its European counterparts) writes the cheque.

The cost may seem astronomical, but it amounts to 0.5 x 0.02 x 2,000 billion in France (% of gross income in GDP x share of one week in annual GDP x annual GDP) or €12 billion per week. This is expensive but derisory compared to the situation. Depending on whether the success rate is 80% or 90% per phase. (≈ x 5 for the EU total)

Table #3: Projected cost for France
# Zones	Success rate	D+ 16	D + 30	D +44	Total cost
100	80 %	20 zones	4 zones	0,8 zones	50 billions €
100	90 %	10 zones	1 zone	0,1 zone	44 billions €

Table #3′: Projection by country (simplified)
# Zones	Success rate	France	Germany	UK	UE 28
100	80 %	50 billions €	86 billions €	55 billions £	395 bn €
100	90 %	44 billions €	76 billions €	49 billions £	340 bn €

Costs would be significantly reduced by 40% if a hazard such as a pandemic is considered as an integral part of the risks covered by health and pension insurances.

By way of illustration, to save banks and the economy after 2008, two blocks of QE tranches were implemented at €11,000 billion each!

A systematic “carpet funding” approach is simpler, and ultimately less costly, than a detailed case-by-case examination of all companies, where States would be tempted to take back with one hand what they grant with the other.

In addition to this, specific measures can be added, either sector-specific, such as air transport, which will be affected for a longer period of time (postponement of deadlines for the acquisition of aircraft, in addition to wages, global consultation, etc.), or specific, such as part of Paris tourism, which has already been heavily affected by the sequence of attacks + yellow jackets + strikes.

The States must take charge of those who declare symptoms, from the first day, without a day’s absence, and throughout the quarantine that follows (as the United Kingdom has done). And, too bad if some people abuse it, it is better for the population to err on the side of caution than to see them run away from the measures taken.

By way of comparison, a slowdown in activity over 4 months (or more) of 30% (the more time passes, the worse the effects get), excluding medical care, if we are slow to react, would correspond to 7.5% of GDP, or 150 billion for France.

Our approach is THREE to FIVE times less costly.

The cost can be covered in the form of a national or European Solidarity Bond (symbols matters) which will not be taken into account in the usual criteria (3% GDP…).

Exceptional crisis requires exceptional measures.

#6 Acceptability

By bearing the massive costs of the pandemic, governments are reassuring their citizens, businesses, and communities.

Timeliness is essential for proper quarantine compliance. If the timeframe is short and well explained, it will be better respected. Otherwise, fatigue and uncertainty will lead to non-compliance and less effective measures.

The measures, even the most restrictive, are no longer a stopgap measure, but part of an overall plan that offers a happy prospect: victory over the virus.

Social distance is an effective and excellent tool. The role of communities, churches, neighbors, … all this is necessary but not sufficient.

Only essential services will be served. It will be necessary to insist on the protection of our seniors who are more threatened than others. A call will be made to ensure the care of the children of service personnel (doctors, nurses, firemen, policemen…).

The measures must be accepted, but they must be enforced. The best way to do this in such a short time is to build on what already exists.

Mobile operators can easily, if they have not already done so internally for their marketing campaigns, determine the location of people’s “home” and “work” on the basis of the network antennas to which people connect. A simple line to a database look-up can be used to send a text message whenever people are too far from home (apart from shopping).

Warnings (SMS) can be sent to make sure of this, irresponsible behavior is punished by fines, progressive in case of recurrence.

Ditto for the management/recovery of emergencies, a simple system of sending SMS, or telephone disc, to indicate a medical emergency and which one (CoVid-19 or other), an emergency (gas leak or fire…). ((Perhaps a single European number for later…)).

#7 International

These measures to be taken at European level will have to find their counterpart elsewhere. Ideally G7/G20 at the same time or at the latest the following week, for the other geographical areas the following week.

It will be important for the G7/G20 countries to help the other states logistically, medically and financially to do the same. The World Bank’s structural funds should be drawn on without hesitation for this purpose.

For Latin America, it is almost too late to contain, we will have to quarantine, for sub-Saharan Africa there may still be time, but it is important to strike hard, to strike fast, and to obtain consensus.

The real epidemiological risk would be that the areas currently affected by Ebola in DRC become a human reservoir of the CoronaVirus.

#8 Soft Power / Influence

If we wait too long, we risk mutations of the virus, although it seems that like many CoronaViruses, mutations are infrequent. A more deadly mutation will result in a large number of deaths. A more benign mutation and we may have to live with it forever.

If we wait too long, 1 to 2 weeks, what may just be an economic hindrance will create a structural crisis that could lead to collapse.

Providing the vade-mecum that the world urgently and vitally needs is a golden opportunity to gain global influence. ((Necessary for tomorrow’s fight against global warming))

#9 Questions and Answers

Question: What is special about the proposed approach?

Answer: We aim at the definitive eradication of the virus, not its limitation. This profoundly changes the nature and scope of the proposed policies.

Question: How is this approach more effective?

Answer: By shortening the time frame for implementation, and by dividing spatially and sequentially, we limit the spread of the pandemic, its health impacts (number of deaths) and its economic effects (three to five times less expensive); and we increase its social acceptability; and therefore its chances of success.

Question: How is it different from China or Italy?

Answer: By targeting health, economic and societal issues as co-objectives, we aim to propose a reliable and acceptable plan with measurable objectives.

Question: How long does it take to be “virus free”?

Answer: One can hope that a set of countries applying this approach without fail can be free of the virus in 44 days, and be able to resume 100% normal economic activity, including with their neighbors, in 58 days.

Question: How many sick and dead will we have?

Answer: We won’t know. We don’t have enough tests to test everyone who would show symptoms, hypochondriacs… The tests will be reserved for hospitalized people, the dead, and in phases 2 and 3 when tracing the scattered cases.

This will complicate subsequent epidemiological analysis, but will not prevent the success of the policy.