Publications /

Is the United States Reopening Safely?
June 12, 2020

The United States has suffered more COVID-19 casualties than any other country and continues to report large numbers of new cases and deaths, and – as evident recently in stock markets – investors remain extremely sensitive to the epidemic’s shifting trends. As every state reopens, including most recently the New York epicenter, the fates of the American economy and of the global economy depend on whether the United States has put the worst of the epidemic behind it, or whether it will be forced to reclose in the face of a resurgence of infections. We assess the risks by drawing on the record of countries that appear to be reopening successfully so far.

Our comparison group includes Austria and Italy, which reopened early—respectively in mid-April and early May—when death rates and cases were steadily declining. In those countries, there has been no evidence of a resurgence of infections or deaths. We choose Italy because it was the country hit hardest by the pandemic in its earlier phases, it entered its worst period far earlier, and it operated a severe lockdown. Austria was the earliest reopener in Europe and suffered a relatively mild episode. We also include Sweden in the comparison group. Sweden is especially interesting has it eschewed a national lockdown altogether and now reports cases and death rates among the highest in Europe. European countries such as Austria, Italy and Sweden are Western democracies that are among the closest to the United States in income level. Asian countries, including Australia, China, Japan, Korea, and New Zealand, have seen far less severe medical effects from the pandemic than Europe and the United States.

The epidemic in the United States crossed a critical initial threshold at the same time as Austria and Sweden and about three weeks later than Italy, as seen in Figure 1 (inspired by the very helpful presentation of Covid-19 data in the Financial Times). At its peak in mid-April, the death rate in the United States was around six per million, far lower than in Italy, lower than in Sweden, and far higher than Austria. The death rate in the United States continues to decline and is now near two per million, whereas Italy’s is now approaching one and Austria’s close to zero.

Figure 1: Seven-day rolling average of new deaths (per million), by number of days since 0.1 average deaths (per million) first recorded for countries


Source: Our World in Data


This simple comparison of death rates makes it clear that the United States—where reopening began in the state of Georgia in the third week of April—sees an improved situation but remains more exposed to the epidemic than Austria and Italy, and nearly all other EU nations, where the epidemic is waning across the board, with Sweden the exception. However, the U.S. is a continental economy composed of more than 50 states and territories, several of which have populations larger than that of some nations. Given the size and diversity of the United States, and the highly differentiated impact of the pandemic on its different localities, the risk of reopening cannot be assessed without reference to individual states. Here we will focus mainly on the six states with the largest populations, namely California, Florida, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas, which account for about 45% of U.S. GDP and over 33% of the U.S. population. Our reasoning is that failure to control the epidemic in one or more of these large states could trigger a renewed national or partial lockdown that would have a severe effect on the national economy.


Figure 2: Seven-day rolling average of new deaths (per million), by number of days since 0.1 average deaths (per million) first recorded for states



Source: Covid Tracking Project


Figure 3: Seven-day rolling average of new deaths (per million), for the latest available week:


Source: Our World in Data, Covid Tracking Project


The comparisons in Figure 2 and 3 above suggest that the large states fall into three groups: New York stands on its own as exhibiting an epidemic pattern very similar to that of Italy, including a high and sharply declining number of new cases (not shown) and deaths. If the Italian experience is a guide, there is little reason to expect a resurgence of the epidemic in New York in the coming months, even as it gradually reopens. Similar patterns to New York can be seen in other smaller states in the north-east U.S. worst hit by the epidemic, such as New Jersey and Connecticut.

The second group of states consists of California, Florida, and Texas, whose epidemic patterns are perhaps closest to that of Austria, characterized by a low number of new cases (not shown) and deaths adjusted for population. However, these states differ in significant respects from Austria and Italy, as they continue to report a rising number of cases, stable numbers of new deaths, and still high shares of positive tests.

The share of positive tests is an important and sometimes overlooked indicator. Since tests are usually only carried out on patients who are suspected of having contracted the disease, the share of positive tests can indicate an upper bound estimate of the prevalence of the disease in the wider population. Test positivity is now minuscule in Austria and Italy, well under 0.5% and low in Sweden, less than 1%, but—except for New York where it is close to 1%—it is far higher in the other large U.S. states. Test positivity is over 5% in California, Florida, and Texas, and over 10% in Pennsylvania and Illinois. Based on this indicator, it is highly likely that the virus remains far more widespread across these states than in Sweden, Austria, and Italy, even if test positivity is measured at the time that the latter two started reopening.

What can be said with some confidence is that, because the number of new cases and deaths in Florida, California, and Texas is low— well below the incidence in Italy at the time of reopening—there will be time for governments to react should the indicators point in the wrong direction. These states also presently have sufficient hospital capacity and, given their relatively low number of cases, probably have the ability to identify clusters of cases, trace contacts and treat patients. However, if there continues to be rise in cases – as has been seen recently in all three – that situation could change quite quickly. Several states in the south and west of the United States have epidemic patterns that resemble those of California, Florida, and Texas, though most are not seeing a rise in cases, including Georgia, the first state to open.

The third group of states, consisting of Illinois and Pennsylvania, is the most problematic in our view. These are states where the number of infections, deaths, and shares of positive cases remain high and there is no clear trend of improvement in death rates. The death rate in Illinois is 7.4 per million per day (seven day moving average). To put that rate in perspective, it is double the rate in Sweden, where the government’s policy of no-lockdown has come under increasingly strong criticism. The number of new cases in Illinois and Pennsylvania is stable or on a gentle downward path but remains at levels where it is difficult to believe that a systematic policy of testing, tracking and treatment can work without disproportionate expenditure of resources. Other large states in the mid-west and north-east, including Ohio and Massachusetts, exhibit similar epidemic patterns to Illinois and Pennsylvania.

We conclude from this short review that the risk of a reversal of reopening policies in one or more large U.S. states, most notably – but not only - in the third group, remains significant.

Still, it is difficult to imagine that a resurgence of COVID-19 in one or more states would prompt a return to a nationwide lockdown in the United States. Control of the disease is being carried out in highly decentralized and localized fashion, led by state governors who often defer to leaders in individual cities or counties where situations differ markedly. A return to a national lockdown would be seen as economically disastrous, and, in 2020, the year of a fateful election, such a reversal would be politically calamitous for incumbents. A more likely scenario is the acceptance of increased death rates and of selective tightening of restrictions in the localities/groups worst affected. Depending on the prevalence of these localized outbreaks the effect on US consumer and investor confidence could be severe, delaying -but probably not aborting – the economic recovery in the United States and across the world.

[1] Mahmoud Arbouch provided helpful research assistance.


  • April 18, 2024
    The writing of this Report started in november 2023 and benefited during six months from the quality of discussions in the Policy center. Paul Isbel, Professor at UM6P, was a relentless proofreader who generously brought his outstanding competence in economy and political economy. Stephen Gardner went beyond his role as linguistic proofreader and showed an admirable understanding of the substance at stake. Under the direct supervision of Professor Abdelaziz Aitali, the Economic Depa ...
  • Authors
    December 30, 2020
    According to this month’s OECD economic outlook, global GDP --- which took a huge hit from the pandemic and is still 3% below its level of a year ago – will not recover its pre-pandemic level until the end of 2021. In a downside scenario, the return could take almost a year longer. The OECD predictions, which imply high and protracted unemployment, are in line with the view of many other official and private organizations. The arrival of effective vaccines such as Pfizer-BioNTech wa ...
  • Authors
    June 12, 2020
    The United States has suffered more COVID-19 casualties than any other country and continues to report large numbers of new cases and deaths, and – as evident recently in stock markets – investors remain extremely sensitive to the epidemic’s shifting trends. As every state reopens, including most recently the New York epicenter, the fates of the American economy and of the global economy depend on whether the United States has put the worst of the epidemic behind it, or whether it w ...
  • Authors
    November 8, 2019
    The Trump government has been imposing restrictions on access to technologies by Chinese telecommunications firms. Why and what are the consequences? The Federal Communications Commission is about to ban carriers from using government funds to buy equipment from Huawei and ZTE. Other government agencies are expected to take similar measures. This is just the latest episode of a gradual squeeze that the Trump government has been giving over China's telecommunications giant Huawei, ...
  • Authors
    September 30, 2019
    Despite some short-term benefits, trade deviation to the region shouldn’t be expected to last. Has the U.S. trade war with China been good for Latin America? An increase in Chinese demand for primary products from the region, as well as recent news of production transfers from China to Mexico, might give the impression that it has. But any positive short-term effects of the confrontation should also take into account its negative medium- and long-term impacts on the region and on gl ...
  • Authors
    Laurence Kotlikoff
    August 15, 2019
    Thirty months into President Trump's radical trade policy, it is time to take stock. American firms tend to give the President the benefit of the doubt - that the aim is not protection (which most don't want) but opening up markets overseas, striking better trade deals, and reducing the nation's big trade deficit. So far, however, none of this has happened. Instead, there is virulent uncertainty, barriers against American firms are going up, Europe, Japan and China have struck impor ...
  • Authors
    June 10, 2019
    This article was originally published on Center for Macroeconomics and development's website Friday night, US President Donald Trump announced by Twitter that he would suspend the implementation of tariffs on Mexican imports, which would start with 5% on Monday, June 10, to reach 25% in October. A signed agreement between the two countries, also confirmed by Twitter by Mexico’s foreign minister Marcelo Ebrard, would have included Mexican government’s commitments to take “strong mea ...
  • Authors
    June 3, 2019
    In a recent brief, titled” The Crisis in World Trade”, my co-authors and I conclude that whether we still have a rules-based system a few years from now depends on the answer to three questions: Can the WTO be revitalized? Is protectionism in the United States a temporary aberration? Will China reform and fit the liberal economic order? If the answer to these three questions is yes, the system will likely endure. If the answer is no, we will return to the power based non system that ...
  • Authors
    May 22, 2019
    The trade tensions between the United States and China will cause only minor immediate damage to their giant economies. However, tariffs have important and diverse effects on individual sectors and cause heightened uncertainty. The main adverse effects on Sub-Saharan Africa will therefore be through global investor confidence, economic growth and commodity prices, and these effects could be severe if the dispute escalates further and endangers the rules-based trading system. The tra ...