Mapping the world's opinions

argument top image

COVID-19: Are government resources better spent on public health or stimulating the economy? Show more Show less

Much of the world is now in lockdown to protect populations from the deadly spread of coronavirus. Yet, the US government is looking into an alternative approach. The latest statements from Donald Trump insist that 'the cure...[cannot be] worse than the disease'. These comments mark a striking policy difference to the rest of the world. Namely, they place more value on economic growth than on human life. During this unique pandemic, are government funds better spent on public health, or on stimulating the economy?

Government resources are better spent on economic growth Show more Show less

Stopping citizens from returning to work during the pandemic, will lead to a protracted economic crisis.
(1 of 3 Positions) Next >

Poorer states with few cases will disproportionately suffer

Blanket lockdown will unfairly crash economies where there are no coronavirus cases.
(1 of 2 Arguments) Next >


In a press conference, President Trump highlighted the extent to which smaller states would suffer if lockdown rules were not relaxed.

The Argument

There are several smaller, rural states that have seen few coronavirus victims. Extending the lockdown in these states would therefore be disproportionate, especially given how long it could take to climb out of a subsequent recession. Idaho, Iowa and Nebraska for example, are hardly affected by the spread of COVID-19. To devastate their economies because larger, richer states are suffering, would be unfair.

Counter arguments



Rejecting the premises


Further Reading


    Explore related arguments

    This page was last edited on Friday, 17 Apr 2020 at 11:05 UTC