Coronavirus crisis could plunge half a billion people into poverty - Oxfam

[webfact]

Coronavirus crisis could plunge half a billion people into poverty - Oxfam

By Karin Strohecker

 

FILE PHOTO: Migrants workers rest inside a workshop after it was shut due to the 21-day nationwide lockdown to slow the spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), in Mumbai, India, April 7, 2020. REUTERS/Prashant Waydande

 

LONDON (Reuters) - The fallout from the coronavirus spread that has killed more than 83,000 people and wreaked havoc on economies around the world could push around half a billion people into poverty, Oxfam said on Thursday.

 

The report released by the Nairobi-based charity ahead of next week's International Monetary Fund (IMF)/World Bank annual meeting calculated the impact of the crisis on global poverty due to shrinking household incomes or consumption.

 

"The economic crisis that is rapidly unfolding is deeper than the 2008 global financial crisis," the report found.

 

"The estimates show that, regardless of the scenario, global poverty could increase for the first time since 1990," it said, adding that this could throw some countries back to poverty levels last seen some three decades ago.

 

The report authors played through a number of scenarios, taking into account the World Bank's various poverty lines - from extreme poverty, defined as living on $1.90 a day or less, to higher poverty lines of living on less than $5.50 a day.

 

Under the most serious scenario - a 20% contraction in income - the number of people living in extreme poverty would rise by 434 million people to 922 million worldwide. The same scenario would see the number of people living below the $5.50 a day threshold rise by 548 million people to nearly 4 billion.

 

Women are at more risk than men, as they are more likely to work in the informal economy with little or no employment rights.

 

"Living day to day, the poorest people do not have the ability to take time off work, or to stockpile provisions," the report warned, adding that more than 2 billion informal sector workers worldwide had no access to sick pay.

 

The World Bank last week said poverty in East Asia and the Pacific region alone could increase by 11 million people if conditions worsened.

 

To help mitigate the impact, Oxfam proposed a six point action plan that would deliver cash grants and bailouts to people and businesses in need, and also called for debt cancellation, more IMF support, and increased aid. Taxing wealth, extraordinary profits, and speculative financial products would help raise the funds needed, Oxfam added.

 

Calls for debt relief have increased in recent weeks as the fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic has roiled developing nations around the world.

In total, governments around the world would need to mobilise at least $2.5 trillion to support developing nations.

 

"Rich countries have shown that at this time of crisis they can mobilize trillions of dollars to support their own economies," the report said.

 

"Yet unless developing countries are also able to fight the health and economic impacts the crisis will continue and it will inflict even greater harm on all countries, rich and poor."

 

(Reporting by Karin Strohecker, Editing by Rosalba O'Brien)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-04-09

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[kevin612]

It’s understandable, poor people always suffer the most, it has no effect to the rich except may be endanger their health.

[jimmjam]

8 minutes ago, kevin612 said:

It’s understandable, poor people always suffer the most, it has no effect to the rich except may be endanger their health.

And add a little dent to there wealth.

No big impact for them really.

Feel sorry for all the people who were struggling before this even happened.

Must be in desperation mode now.

[Tug]

It’s sad and to think that 3 short years ago my country would have been in the forefront trying to help sadly not now

[Isaan sailor]

Who would have thought the CCP’s Belt & Road initiative and quest for world domination would include Coronavirus?

[thaibeachlovers]

8 hours ago, webfact said:

In total, governments around the world would need to mobilise at least $2.5 trillion to support developing nations.

Hmmmm. Countries like NZ will be in recession or even depression. Government is borrowing multi millions. Where is the money to help other nations going to come from? Borrow more money that the grandchildren of today's people will still be paying back?

 

[thaibeachlovers]

8 hours ago, webfact said:

Under the most serious scenario - a 20% contraction in income

Ya reckon? IMO be much more severe than that in some countries. Tourism is going to be stuffed for a very long time and that employs millions directly and indirectly.

[Skeptic7]

In other words...The cure will prove worse than the problem. One thing is certain...when this virus (or some other) appears in the future, Planet Earth CANNOT afford these drastic measures of being stopped again. What good trying to save every single possible life when there nothing left which to return??? 

[timendres]

7 hours ago, Skeptic7 said:

In other words...The cure will prove worse than the problem. One thing is certain...when this virus (or some other) appears in the future, Planet Earth CANNOT afford these drastic measures of being stopped again. What good trying to save every single possible life when there nothing left which to return??? 

Assuming what appears to be numbers approaching a 1% death rate, with 7B people in the world, the absolute worst case is 70M dead - with a good percentage of those being people who are very old and sick to begin with.

 

The price of avoiding this worst case scenario is:

Quote

the number of people living in extreme poverty would rise by 434 million people to 922 million worldwide. The same scenario would see the number of people living below the $5.50 a day threshold rise by 548 million people to nearly 4 billion.

 

Of course, my analysis does fall down in the sense that, assuming we were to let the virus spread unchecked, the death rate would probably end up higher than 1%, as the medical system began to collapse under the load, and was unable to support as many people as it does now. But the question remains the same - at what cost do we attempt to limit the spread of this (or any other) virus with the measures being used today?

[Tounge Thaied]

Governments world-wide are truly about to feel the wrath of WE THE PEOPLE!! It's time to say, enough is enough!!!

[TheDark]

The French people were brave enough of taking back control from their abusers. Why this is not happening around the world already?

 

Why the Russians have not already taken control of Kremlin? 

 

[Jingthing]

4 minutes ago, Tounge Thaied said:

Governments world-wide are truly about to feel the wrath of WE THE PEOPLE!! It's time to say, enough is enough!!!

Not a good time for large street protests. Perhaps a hashtag is in order? I hear those really work.

[Tounge Thaied]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

Not a good time for large street protests. Perhaps a hashtag is in order? I hear those really work.

It only takes each of us, in our own current actionable ways to say NO. To say enough... we don't have to march in the streets. 

[Jingthing]

 

1 minute ago, Tounge Thaied said:

It only takes each of us, in our own current actionable ways to say NO. To say enough... we don't have to march in the streets. 

Screaming at our televisions in our isolation units? I know the feeling. 

[Tounge Thaied]

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Not a good time for large street protests. Perhaps a hashtag is in order? I hear those really work.

We only have to get off our <deleted> and stop acquiescing. 

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, timendres said:

Of course, my analysis does fall down in the sense that, assuming we were to let the virus spread unchecked, the death rate would probably end up higher than 1%, as the medical system began to collapse under the load, and was unable to support as many people as it does now. But the question remains the same - at what cost do we attempt to limit the spread of this (or any other) virus with the measures being used today?

What the governments seem to be concentrating on is the first wave, but till a vaccine is developed there will be a second and subsequent wave. They are being pretty quiet about that, and what they'll do when they strike.

Seems to me that in the end it'll be herd immunity that rules. If they keep locking us down it'll, IMO, end badly. We've been in lockdown only 2 weeks and the cracks in it are getting larger. They could impose martial law and force people to comply, but when it's over, and this too WILL pass, they'll answer for it at the ballot box.

 

I just heard someone on radio saying the plan is to SLOW the spread, but in the end probably most people ( still alive ) will have had it. That sounds pretty sensible to me, but the government has not promoted that, instead telling us that "we can eliminate it", which is only possible if they never let anyone in without 14 day quarantine for the next 12 to 18 months. That'll certainly destroy any international tourism, and cause a massive increase in unemployment, with all the unpleasant consequences of that.

 

Despite many people having had it and recovered, they are still being locked down, which IMO is a strange thing to do. If they have the antibodies are they not immune?

[thaibeachlovers]

24 minutes ago, Tounge Thaied said:

It only takes each of us, in our own current actionable ways to say NO. To say enough... we don't have to march in the streets. 

Governments, even those that claim to be democratic, have unpleasant ways of forcing us to comply. I for one do not want martial law imposed or huge fines. If the economy crashes badly enough, fines may start to look appealing to a cash strapped government.

[simple1]

13 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Hmmmm. Countries like NZ will be in recession or even depression. Government is borrowing multi millions. Where is the money to help other nations going to come from? Borrow more money that the grandchildren of today's people will still be paying back?

 

NZ current foreign aid budget is NZ$2.2 billion over three years. One assumes the government will at least reallocate some funds to assist countries in the Pacific to specifically assist with Covid matters.

 

https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/aid-and-development/our-approach-to-aid/where-our-funding-goes/our-planned-aid-expenditure/

[AlexRich]

I’m wondering how those millions of Indian workers who no longer have a job can feed themselves and their families? And it’s only just begun to spread in Africa. 

[metisdead]

A conspiracy post has been removed. 

[mr mr]

22 hours ago, webfact said:

In total, governments around the world would need to mobilise at least $2.5 trillion to support developing nations.

is that all ?

 

a drop in the bucket compared to the 6 plus trillion being printed in america. most of which is being handed over to corporations.

[steven100]

They are only guessing with those numbers, it could be much higher and I suspect we will never really know the exact numbers but in the billions I would imagine. 

[stephenterry]

This coronavirus is a wake-up call. Oxfam Nairobi are, IMO, utilising the 'opportunity' to highlight poverty stricken countries and communities who have been suffering for DECADES - but of course, the majority of the general public in USA, UK, Europe etc are immune to poverty outside their own domain. Having worked for Oxfam for 10 years, I'm well informed that world poverty is spread all over the globe, and even in Oxford itself.

 

The people's mantra for most well-off societies is - 'I'm all right jack, until I lose my job' - then it's all about removing the lockdown closures with the selfish rationale that the economy is going bust. Who cares a flying fig about how many others die  - they're mainly pensioners on death's door anyway - and who cares about world poverty unless it's me me me who's affected.

 

Reading some of the posts above, demanding an end to lockdowns, is a typical selfish reaction.

 

 

 

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, simple1 said:

NZ current foreign aid budget is NZ$2.2 billion over three years. One assumes the government will at least reallocate some funds to assist countries in the Pacific to specifically assist with Covid matters.

 

https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/aid-and-development/our-approach-to-aid/where-our-funding-goes/our-planned-aid-expenditure/

Assuming that any foreign aid will be given when thousands of NZ citizens will be in poverty. It was bad before and this is really going to need hard decisions to be made.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, stephenterry said:

This coronavirus is a wake-up call. Oxfam Nairobi are, IMO, utilising the 'opportunity' to highlight poverty stricken countries and communities who have been suffering for DECADES - but of course, the majority of the general public in USA, UK, Europe etc are immune to poverty outside their own domain. Having worked for Oxfam for 10 years, I'm well informed that world poverty is spread all over the globe, and even in Oxford itself.

 

The people's mantra for most well-off societies is - 'I'm all right jack, until I lose my job' - then it's all about removing the lockdown closures with the selfish rationale that the economy is going bust. Who cares a flying fig about how many others die  - they're mainly pensioners on death's door anyway - and who cares about world poverty unless it's me me me who's affected.

 

Reading some of the posts above, demanding an end to lockdowns, is a typical selfish reaction.

 

 

 

 

 

How many deaths caused by poverty are worth keeping on with policies that will destroy the economy?

A government's prime responsibility is it's own citizens.

[stephenterry]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

How many deaths caused by poverty are worth keeping on with policies that will destroy the economy?

A government's prime responsibility is it's own citizens.

Which is why they should be enforcing lockdown, so that the Coronavirus passes through and we can all resume our lives before the economy is harmed and poverty increased. That's being responsible. If you can't see that, you're not on the same wavelength.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, stephenterry said:

Which is why they should be enforcing lockdown, so that the Coronavirus passes through and we can all resume our lives before the economy is harmed and poverty increased. That's being responsible. If you can't see that, you're not on the same wavelength.

Lockdowns don't eliminate the virus. Only herd immunity and vaccine will do that.

Economy is already stuffed and it's only been 2 weeks. There will be no international tourism so long as 2 week quarantine is in place, so thousands have already lost their income, more or less.

 

Same wavelength, hardly.

[simple1]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Assuming that any foreign aid will be given when thousands of NZ citizens will be in poverty. It was bad before and this is really going to need hard decisions to be made.

Seriously doubt NZ government will cease foreign aid due to Covid.

[stephenterry]

6 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Lockdowns don't eliminate the virus. Only herd immunity and vaccine will do that.

Economy is already stuffed and it's only been 2 weeks. There will be no international tourism so long as 2 week quarantine is in place, so thousands have already lost their income, more or less.

 

Same wavelength, hardly.

So you want to wait for c. 6 months before herd immunity is feasible, or c. two months to let the virus pass by? Lockdowns are essential  to save lives - end of.

[mauGR1]

5 hours ago, AlexRich said:

I’m wondering how those millions of Indian workers who no longer have a job can feed themselves and their families? And it’s only just begun to spread in Africa. 

Right, and not only in India and Africa, but worldwide.

Yet we still have some people who think that lockdowns are ok, well, until the economical crisis will bite them in the a**.