Over the last 10 months we’ve seen how different governments have handled the COVID-19 pandemics in their own countries, and how nations have been impacted very differently as a result.
While countries like Italy, the United Kingdom and Belgium have more than 100 deaths per 100,000 of the population, places where governments acted much faster and more decisively, like New Zealand have a far lower mortality rate (in the case of NZ, 0.5 deaths per 100,000).
Our government made the argument that they had to balance saving lives with saving the economy. But this, it transpires, is a false dichotomy. In 2020, the UK saw GDP shrink by an estimated 11.3%. New Zealand’s economy actually grew slightly by 0.4%.
For sure, during their very stringent measures to tackle the virus, their economy shrank like everyone else’s. But having very effectively made their country COVID-free, it bounced back in a remarkable V-shaped recovery. Life in countries that took the difficult decisions earlier has mostly returned to normal. Shops, bars, restaurants, theatres and sports stadiums are open, and NZ is very much open for business.
The depressing fact is that countries like the UK made a logical error in trying to keep the economy going when they should have been cracking down on the spread of the virus. In March, cases were doubling roughly twice a week, and every week’s delay in acting cost four times as many lives. Delaying for 2 weeks in March meant that infection cases sored to a level that made the subsequent lockdown much, much longer. Hence there was a far greater impact on the economy.
Eventually, by early July, cases in the UK had almost disappeared. At which point, instead of doubling down on the measures to ensure a COVID-free UK, the government made the same mistake all over again. They opened everything up again because they mistakenly calculated that they had to get the economy moving as soon as possible.
Cases started to rise again – albeit at a slower rate this time, as most people were still taking steps to reduce risks of infection – and around we went a second time.
The next totally predictable – and totally predicted – lockdown again came weeks too late in November.
And again, as soon as they saw that cases were coming down, they reopened the economy.
We’re now in our third lockdown, and this one looks set to last until late Spring at the earliest. This time, we have vaccines on our side, and life will hopefully get back to relative normal in the summer, but the damage has been done. And, yet again, the damage is far larger than it needed to be.
50,000 families have lost their homes since March 2020. Thousands of businesses have folded. Theatres may never reopen, and city centres will probably never recover as home-working becomes the New Normal.
By trying to trade-off saving lives against the economy, countries like the UK have ended up with the worst of both worlds: one of the highest mortality rates in Europe, and one of the worst recessions.
You see, it’s not saving lives or saving the economy. It’s saving lives and saving the economy. The same steps that would have saved more lives would have made the lockdowns shorter, and therefore brought economic recovery faster.
Why am I telling you all this? Well, we have our own false dichotomies in software. The most famous one being the perceived trade-off between quality and time or cost.
An unwillingness to invest in, say, more testing sooner in the mistaken belief that it will save time leads many teams into deep water. Over three decades, I’ve seen countless times how this leads to software that’s both buggier and costs more to deliver and to maintain – the worst of both worlds.
The steps we can take to improve the quality of our software turn out to be the same steps that help us deliver it sooner, and maintain it for longer for less money. Time “wasted” writing developer tests, for example, is actually an order of magnitude more time saved downstream (where “downstream” could just as easily mean “later today” as “after release”).
But the urge to cut corners and do trade-offs is strong, especially in highly politicised environments where leaders are rarely thinking past the next headline (or in our case, the next meeting with the boss). It’s a product of timid leadership, and one-dimensional, short-term reasoning.
When we go by the evidence, we see that many trade-offs are nothing of the sort.