Search

Immediately after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in Early 2020, most affected countries reacted with strict lockdown to limit the spread of the virus. Since that time, the measures were adapted on a short time basis according to certain numbers (i.e., number of infected, utilization of intensive care units). Implementing a long-term optimal strategy was not possible since a forecast when R&D will succeed in developing an effective vaccination was not available. Our paper closes this gap by assuming a stochastic arrival rate of the COVID-19 vaccine with the corresponding change in the optimal policy regarding the accompanying optimal lockdown measures. The first finding is that the lockdown should be intensified after the vaccine approval if the pace of the vaccination campaign is rather slow. Secondly, the anticipation of the vaccination arrival also leads to a stricter lockdown in the period without vaccination. For both findings, an intuitive explanation is offered.

Nations struggled to decide when and how to end COVID-19 inspired lockdowns, with sharply divergent views between those arguing for a resumption of economic activity and those arguing for continuing the lockdown in some form. We examine the choice between continuing or ending a full lockdown within a simple optimal control model that encompasses both health and economic outcomes, and pays particular attention to when need for care exceeds hospital capacity. The model shows that very different strategies can perform similarly well and even both be optimal for the same relative valuation on work and life because of the presence of a so-called Skiba threshold. Qualitatively the alternate strategies correspond to trying essentially to eradicate the virus or merely to flatten the curve so fewer people urgently need healthcare when hospitals are already filled to capacity.