impact of covid in india essay

PERSPECTIVE article

The rise and impact of covid-19 in india.

$\nS. Udhaya Kumar$

1 School of Biosciences and Technology, Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore, India
2 VIT-BS, Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore, India

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, which originated in the city of Wuhan, China, has quickly spread to various countries, with many cases having been reported worldwide. As of May 8th, 2020, in India, 56,342 positive cases have been reported. India, with a population of more than 1.34 billion—the second largest population in the world—will have difficulty in controlling the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 among its population. Multiple strategies would be highly necessary to handle the current outbreak; these include computational modeling, statistical tools, and quantitative analyses to control the spread as well as the rapid development of a new treatment. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare of India has raised awareness about the recent outbreak and has taken necessary actions to control the spread of COVID-19. The central and state governments are taking several measures and formulating several wartime protocols to achieve this goal. Moreover, the Indian government implemented a 55-days lockdown throughout the country that started on March 25th, 2020, to reduce the transmission of the virus. This outbreak is inextricably linked to the economy of the nation, as it has dramatically impeded industrial sectors because people worldwide are currently cautious about engaging in business in the affected regions.

Current Scenario in India

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes coronavirus disease (COVID-19), was first identified in December 2019 in Wuhan city, China, and later spread to many provinces in China. As of May 8th, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) had documented 3,759,967 positive COVID-19 cases, and the death toll attributed to COVID-19 had reached 259,474 worldwide ( 1 ). So far, more than 212 countries and territories have confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection. On January 30th, 2020, the WHO declared COVID-19 a Public Health Emergency of International Concern ( 2 ). The first SARS-CoV-2 positive case in India was reported in the state of Kerala on January 30th, 2020. Subsequently, the number of cases drastically rose. According to the press release by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) on May 8th, 2020, a total of 14,37,788 suspected samples had been sent to the National Institute of Virology (NIV), Pune, and a related testing laboratory ( 3 ). Among them, 56,342 cases tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 ( 4 ). A state-wise distribution of positive cases until May 8th, 2020, is listed in Table 1 , and the cases have been depicted on an Indian map ( Figure 1 ). Nearly 197,192 Indians have recently been repatriated from affected regions, and more than 1,393,301 passengers have been screened for SARS-CoV-2 at Indian airports ( 5 ), with 111 positive cases observed among foreign nationals ( 4 , 5 ). As of May 8th, 2020, Maharashtra, Delhi, and Gujarat states were reported to be hotspots for COVID-19 with 17,974, 5,980, and 7,012 confirmed cases, respectively. To date, 16,540 patients have recovered, and 1,886 deaths have been reported in India ( 5 ). To impose social distancing, the “Janata curfew” (14-h lockdown) was ordered on March 22nd, 2020. A further lockdown was initiated for 21 days, starting on March 25th, 2020, and the same was extended until May 3rd, 2020, but, owing to an increasing number of positive cases, the lockdown has been extended for the third time until May 17th, 2020 ( 6 ). Currently, out of 32 states and eight union territories in India, 26 states and six union territories have reported COVID-19 cases. Additionally, the health ministry has identified 130 districts as hotspot zones or red zones, 284 as orange zones (with few SARS-CoV-2 infections), and 319 as green zones (no SARS-CoV-2 infection) as of May 4th, 2020. These hotspot districts have been identified to report more than 80% of the cases across the nation. Nineteen districts in Uttar Pradesh are identified as hotspot districts, and this was followed by 14 and 12 districts in Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu, respectively ( 7 ). The complete lockdown was implemented in these containment zones to stop/limit community transmission ( 5 ). As of May 8th, 2020, 310 government laboratories and 111 private laboratories across the country were involved in SARS-CoV-2 testing. As per ICMR report, 14,37,788 samples were tested till date, which is 1.04 per thousand people ( 3 ).

Table 1 . Current status of reported positive coronavirus disease cases in India (State-wise).

Figure 1 . State-wise distribution of positive coronavirus disease cases displayed on an Indian geographical map.

COVID-19 and Previous Coronavirus Outbreaks

The recent outbreak of COVID-19 in several countries is similar to the previous outbreaks of SARS and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) that emerged in 2003 and 2012 in China and Saudi Arabia, respectively ( 8 – 10 ). Coronavirus is responsible for both SARS and COVID-19 diseases; they affect the respiratory tract and cause major disease outbreaks worldwide. SARS is caused by SARS-CoV, whereas SARS-CoV-2 causes COVID-19. So far, there is no particular treatment available to treat SARS or COVID-19. In the current search for a COVID-19 cure, there is some evidence that point to SARS-CoV-2 being similar to human coronavirus HKU1 and 229E strains ( 11 , 12 ) even though they are new coronavirus family members. These reports suggest that humans do not have immunity to this virus, allowing its easy and rapid spread among human populations through contact with an infected person. SARS-CoV-2 is more transmissible than SARS-CoV. The two possible reasons could be (i) the viral load (quantity of virus) tends to be relatively higher in COVID-19-positive patients, especially in the nose and throat immediately after they develop symptoms, and (ii) the binding affinity of SARS-CoV-2 to host cell receptors is higher than that of SARS-CoV ( 13 , 14 ). The other comparisons between SARS and COVID-19 are tabulated in Table 2 , and references for the same are provided here ( 1 , 15 , 16 ).

Table 2 . Differences between coronavirus disease and severe acute respiratory syndrome.

Impact of COVID-19 in India and the Global Economy

As per the official government guidelines, India is making preparations against the COVID-19 outbreak, and avoiding specific crisis actions or not understating its importance will have extremely severe implications. All the neighboring countries of India have reported positive COVID-19 cases. To protect against the deadly virus, the Indian government have taken necessary and strict measures, including establishing health check posts between the national borders to test whether people entering the country have the virus ( 17 ). Different countries have introduced rescue efforts and surveillance measures for citizens wishing to return from China. The lesson learned from the SARS outbreak was first that the lack of clarity and information about SARS weakened China's global standing and hampered its economic growth ( 10 , 18 – 20 ). The outbreak of SARS in China was catastrophic and has led to changes in health care and medical systems ( 18 , 20 ). Compared with China, the ability of India to counter a pandemic seems to be much lower. A recent study reported that affected family members had not visit the Wuhan market in China, suggesting that SARS-CoV-2 may spread without manifesting symptoms ( 21 ). Researchers believe that this phenomenon is normal for many viruses. India, with a population of more than 1.34 billion—the second largest population in the world—will have difficulty treating severe COVID-19 cases because the country has only 49,000 ventilators, which is a minimal amount. If the number of COVID-19 cases increases in the nation, it would be a catastrophe for India ( 22 ). It would be difficult to identify sources of infection and those who come in contact with them. This would necessitate multiple strategies to handle the outbreak, including computational modeling as well as statistical and quantitative analyses, to rapidly develop new vaccines and drug treatments. With such a vast population, India's medical system is grossly inadequate. A study has shown that, owing to inadequate medical care systems, nearly 1 million people die every year in India ( 23 ). India is also engaged in trading with its nearby countries, such as Bangladesh, Bhutan, Pakistan, Myanmar, China, and Nepal. During the financial year 2017–18 (FY2017–18), Indian regional trade amounted to nearly $12 billion, accounting for only 1.56% of its total global trade value of $769 billion. The outbreak of such viruses and their transmission would significantly affect the Indian economy. The outbreak in China could profoundly affect the Indian economy, especially in the sectors of electronics, pharmaceuticals, and logistics operations, as trade ports with China are currently closed. This was further supported by the statement by Suyash Choudhary, Head—Fixed Income, IDFC AMC, stating that GDP might decrease owing to COVID-19 ( 24 ).

Economists assume that the impact of COVID-19 on the economy will be high and negative when compared with the SARS impact during 2003. For instance, it has been estimated that the number of tourists arriving in China was much higher than that of tourists who traveled during the season when SARS emerged in 2003. This shows that COVID-19 has an effect on the tourism industry. It has been estimated that, for SARS, there was a 57 and 45% decline in yearly rail passenger and road passenger traffic, respectively ( 25 ). Moreover, when compared with the world economy 15 years ago, world economies are currently much more inter-related. It has been estimated that COVID-19 will hurt emerging market currencies and also impact oil prices ( 26 – 28 ). From the retail industry's perspective, consumer savings seem to be high. This might have an adverse effect on consumption rates, as all supply chains are likely to be affected, which in turn would have its impact on supply when compared with the demand of various necessary product items ( 29 ). This clearly proves that, based on the estimated losses due to the effect of SARS on tourism (retail sales lost around USD 12–18 billion and USD 30–100 billion was lost at a global macroeconomic level), we cannot estimate the impact of COVID-19 at this point. This will be possible only when the spread of COVID-19 is fully controlled. Until that time, any estimates will be rather ambiguous and imprecise ( 19 ). The OECD Interim economic assessment has provided briefing reports highlighting the role of China in the global supply chain and commodity markets. Japan, South Korea, and Australia are the countries that are most susceptible to adverse effects, as they have close ties with China. It has been estimated that there has been a 20% decline in car sales, which was 10% of the monthly decline in China during January 2020. This shows that even industrial production has been affected by COVID-19. So far, several factors have thus been identified as having a major economic impact: labor mobility, lack of working hours, interruptions in the global supply chain, less consumption, and tourism, and less demand in the commodity market at a global level ( 30 ), which in turn need to be adequately analyzed by industry type. Corporate leaders need to prioritize the supply chain and product line economy trends via demand from the consumer end. Amidst several debates on sustainable economy before the COVID-19 impact, it has now been estimated that India's GDP by the International Monetary Fund has been cut down to 1.9% from 5.8% for the FY21. The financial crisis that has emerged owing to the worldwide lockdown reflects its adverse effect on several industries and the global supply chain, which has resulted in the GDP dropping to 4.2% for FY20, which was previously estimated at 4.8%. Nevertheless, it has been roughly estimated that India and China will be experiencing considerable positive growth among other major economies ( 31 ).

Preparations and Preventive Measures in India

An easy way to decrease SARS-CoV-2 infection rates is to avoid virus exposure. People from India should avoid traveling to countries highly affected with the virus, practice proper hygiene, and avoid consuming food that is not home cooked. Necessary preventive measures, such as wearing a mask, regular hand washing, and avoiding direct contact with infected persons, should also be practiced. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MOHFW), India, has raised awareness about the recent outbreak and taken necessary action to control COVID-19. Besides, the MOHFW has created a 24 h/7 days-a-week disease alert helpline (+91-11-23978046 and 1800-180-1104) and policy guidelines on surveillance, clinical management, infection prevention and control, sample collection, transportation, and discharging suspected or confirmed cases ( 3 , 5 ). Those who traveled from China, or other countries, and exhibited symptoms, including fever, difficulty in breathing, sore throat, cough, and breathlessness, were asked to visit the nearest hospital for a health check-up. Officials from seven different airports, including Chennai, Cochin, New Delhi, Kolkata, Hyderabad, and Bengaluru, have been ordered to screen and monitor Indian travelers from China and other affected countries. In addition, a travel advisory was released to request the cessation of travel to affected countries, and anyone with a travel history that has included China since January 15th, 2020, would be quarantined. A centralized control room has been set up by the Delhi government at the Directorate General of Health Services, and 11 other districts have done the same. India has implemented COVID-19 travel advisory for intra- and inter-passenger aircraft restrictions. More information on additional travel advisory can be accessed with the provided link ( https://www.mohfw.gov.in/pdf/Traveladvisory.pdf ).

India is known for its traditional medicines in the form of AYUSH (Ayurvedic, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, and Homeopathy). The polyherbal powder NilavembuKudineer showed promising effects against dengue and chikungunya fevers in the past ( 32 ). With the outbreak of COVID-19, the ministry of AYUSH has released a press note “Advisory for Coronavirus,” mentioning useful medications to improve the immunity of the individuals ( 33 ). Currently, according to the ICMR guidelines, doctors prescribe a combination of Lopinavir and Ritonavir for severe COVID-19 cases and hydroxychloroquine for prophylaxis of SARS-CoV-2 infection ( 34 , 35 ). In collaboration with the WHO, ICMR will conduct a therapeutic trial for COVID-19 in India ( 3 ). The ICMR recommends using the US-FDA-approved closed real-time RT-PCR systems, such as GeneXpert and Roche COBAS-6800/8800, which are used to diagnose chronic myeloid leukemia and melanoma, respectively ( 36 ). In addition, the TruenatTM beta CoV test on the TruelabTM workstation validated by the ICMR is recommended as a screening test. All positive results obtained on this platform need to be confirmed by confirmatory assays for SARS-CoV-2. All negative results do not require further testing. Antibody-based rapid tests were validated at NIV, Pune, and found to be satisfactory; the rapid test kits are as follows: (i) SARS-CoV-2 Antibody test (Lateral flow method): Guangzhou Wondfo Biotech, Mylan Laboratories Limited (CE-IVD); (ii) COVID-19 IgM&IgG Rapid Test: BioMedomics (CE-IVD); (iii) COVID-19 IgM/IgG Antibody Rapid Test: Zhuhai Livzon Diagnostics (CEIVD); (iv) New coronavirus (COVID-19) IgG/IgM Rapid Test: Voxtur Bio Ltd, India; (v) COVID-19 IgM/IgG antibody detection card test: VANGUARD Diagnostics, India; (vi) MakesureCOVID-19 Rapid test: HLL Lifecare Limited, India; and (vii) YHLO SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG detection kit (additional equipment required): CPC, Diagnostics. As a step further, on the technological aspect, the Union Health Ministry has launched a mobile application called “AarogyaSetu” that works both on android and iOS mobile phones. This application constructs a user database for establishing an awareness network that can alert people and governments about possible COVID-19 victims ( 37 ).

Future Perspectives

Infections caused by these viruses are an enormous global health threat. They are a major cause of death and have adverse socio-economic effects that are continually exacerbated. Therefore, potential treatment initiatives and approaches need to be developed. First, India is taking necessary preventive measures to reduce viral transmission. Second, ICMR and the Ministry of AYUSH provided guidelines to use conventional preventive and treatment strategies to increase immunity against COVID-19 ( 3 , 38 ). These guidelines could help reduce the severity of the viral infection in elderly patients and increase life expectancy ( 39 ). The recent report from the director of ICMR mentioned that India would undergo randomized controlled trials using convalescent plasma of completely recovered COVID-19 patients. Convalescent plasma therapy is highly recommended, as it has provided moderate success with SARS and MERS ( 40 ); this has been rolled out in 20 health centers and will be increased this month (May 2020) ( 3 ). India has expertise in specialized medical/pharmaceutical industries with production facilities, and the government has established fast-tracking research to develop rapid diagnostic test kits and vaccines at low cost ( 41 ). In addition, the Serum Institute of India started developing a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 infection ( 42 ). Until we obtain an appropriate vaccine, it is highly recommended that we screen the red zoned areas to stop further transmission of the virus. Medical college doctors in Kerala, India, implemented the low-cost WISK (Walk-in Sample Kiosk) to collect samples without direct exposure or contact ( 43 , 44 ). After Kerala, The Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO) developed walk-in kiosks to collect COVID-19 samples and named these as COVID-19 Sample Collection Kiosk (COVSACK) ( 45 ). After the swab collection, the testing of SARS-CoV-2 can be achieved with the existing diagnostic facility in India. This facility can be used for massive screening or at least in the red zoned areas without the need for personal protective equipment kits ( 43 , 45 ). India has attempted to broaden its research facilities and shift toward testing the mass population, as recommended by medical experts in India and worldwide ( 46 ).

Data Availability Statement

Publicly available datasets were analyzed in this study. This data can be found here: https://www.mohfw.gov.in/ and https://www.icmr.gov.in/ .

Author Contributions

SK, DK, and CD were involved in the design of the study and the acquisition, analysis, interpretation of the data, and drafting the manuscript. BC was involved in the interpretation of the data. CD supervised the entire study. The manuscript was reviewed and approved by all the authors.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW) and Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) for publicly providing the details of COVID-19. The authors would like to use this opportunity to thank the management of VIT for providing the necessary facilities and encouragement to carry out this work.

1. Situation report-109. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) . WHO (2020). Available online at: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/situation-reports (accessed May 09, 2020).

2. Wee SL Jr, McNeil DG Jr, Hernández JC. W.H.O. Declares Global Emergency as Wuhan Coronavirus Spreads . The New York Times (2020). Available online at: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/30/health/coronavirus-world-health-organization.html (accessed February 03, 2020).

3. COVID-19 ICMR. COVID-19 . Indian Council of Medical Research. Government of India. ICMR (2020). Available online at: https://main.icmr.nic.in/content/covid-19 (accessed May 09, 2020).

4. COVID-19 update. COVID-19 INDIA . Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. MOHFW (2020). Available online at: https://www.mohfw.gov.in/ (accessed May 09, 2020).

5. Novel coronavirus-MOHFW. Home . Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. GOI (2020). Available online at: http://www.mohfw.gov.in/ (accessed May 08, 2020).

6. Bureau O. PM Modi calls for ‘Janata curfew’ on March 22 from 7 AM-9 PM . @businessline (2020). Available online at: https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/pm-modi-calls-for-janta-curfew-on-march-22-from-7-am-9-pm/article31110155.ece (accessed April 05, 2020).

7. Sangeeta N. Coronavirus Hotspots in India: Full List of 130 COVID-19 Hotspot Districts, All Metro Cities Marked Red Zones . Jagranjosh.com (2020). Available online at: https://www.jagranjosh.com/current-affairs/coronavirus-hotspot-areas-in-india-what-are-hotspots-know-all-covid-hotspots-1586411869-1 (accessed May 03, 2020).

8. Smith RD. Responding to global infectious disease outbreaks: lessons from SARS on the role of risk perception, communication and management. Soc Sci Med. (2006) 63:3113–23. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.08.004

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

9. Mackay IM, Arden KE. MERS coronavirus: diagnostics, epidemiology and transmission. Virol J. (2015) 12:222. doi: 10.1186/s12985-015-0439-5

10. Peeri NC, Shrestha N, Rahman MS, Zaki R, Tan Z, Bibi S, et al. The SARS, MERS and novel coronavirus (COVID-19) epidemics, the newest and biggest global health threats: what lessons have we learned? Int J Epidemiol . (2020). doi: 10.1093/ije/dyaa033. [Epub ahead of print].

11. Broor S, Dawood FS, Pandey BG, Saha S, Gupta V, Krishnan A, et al. Rates of respiratory virus-associated hospitalization in children aged <5 years in rural northern India. J Infection. (2014) 68:281–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2013.11.005

12. Sonawane AA, Shastri J, Bavdekar SB. Respiratory pathogens in infants diagnosed with acute lower respiratory tract infection in a Tertiary Care Hospital of Western India Using Multiplex Real Time PCR. Indian J Pediatr. (2019) 86:433–8. doi: 10.1007/s12098-018-2840-8

13. Tai W, He L, Zhang X, Pu J, Voronin D, Jiang S, et al. Characterization of the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of 2019 novel coronavirus: implication for development of RBD protein as a viral attachment inhibitor and vaccine. Cell Mol Immunol. (2020). doi: 10.1038/s41423-020-0400-4. [Epub ahead of print].

14. Zou L, Ruan F, Huang M, Liang L, Huang H, Hong Z, et al. SARS-CoV-2 viral load in upper respiratory specimens of infected patients. N Engl J Med. (2020) 382:1177–9. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2001737

15. Emergencies preparedness, response. WHO | Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS)-multi-country outbreak - Update 55 . WHO (2003). Available online at: https://www.who.int/csr/don/2003_05_14a/en/ (accessed February 03, 2020).

Google Scholar

16. CDC. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) – Symptoms . Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2020). Available online at: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/symptoms-testing/symptoms.html (accessed April 07, 2020).

17. Qayam. Coronavirus scare in east UP due to cases in Nepal . The Siasat Daily (2020). Available online at: https://www.siasat.com/coronavirus-scare-east-due-cases-nepal-1805965/ (accessed February 03, 2020).

18. Huang Y. The Sars Epidemic And Its Aftermath In China: A Political Perspective . National Academies Press (US) (2004). Available online at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK92479/ (accessed May 04, 2020).

19. Qiu W, Chu C, Mao A, Wu J. The impacts on health, society, and economy of SARS and H7N9 outbreaks in China: a case comparison study. J Environ Public Health. (2018) 2018:e2710185. doi: 10.1155/2018/2710185

20. McCloskey B, Heymann DL. SARS to novel coronavirus–old lessons and new lessons. Epidemiol Infect . (2020) 148:e22. doi: 10.1017/S0950268820000254

21. Chan JF-W, Yuan S, Kok K-H, To KK-W, Chu H, Yang J, et al. A familial cluster of pneumonia associated with the 2019 novel coronavirus indicating person-to-person transmission: a study of a family cluster. Lancet. (2020) 395:514–23. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30154-9

22. PIB Mubmai. Press Information Bureau . Press Information Bureau (2020). Available online at: https://pib.gov.in/indexd.aspx (accessed May 05, 2020).

23. Dandona L, Dandona R, Kumar GA, Shukla DK, Paul VK, Balakrishnan K, et al. Nations within a nation: variations in epidemiological transition across the states of India, 1990–2016 in the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet. (2017) 390:2437–60. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32804-0

24. Samrat S. Coronavirus may hit Sitharaman's 10% growth target; second case surfaces in India . The Financial Express (2020). Available online at: https://www.financialexpress.com/economy/coronavirus-may-hit-sitharamans-10-gdp-growth-target-second-case-surfaces-in-india/1852146/ (accessed February 03, 2020).

25. Cheng E, Tan W. Coronavirus cases in China overtake SARS — and the economic impact could be “more severe.” CNBC (2020). Available online at: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/29/coronavirus-cases-in-china-overtake-sars-and-impact-could-be-more-severe.html (accessed March 11, 2020).

26. Atsmon Y, Child P, Dobbs R, Narasimhan L. Winning the $30 Trillion Decathlon: Going for Gold in Emerging Markets . McKinsey (2012). Available online at: https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/winning-the-30-trillion-decathlon-going-for-gold-in-emerging-markets (accessed May 04, 2020).

27. Sudhir K, Priester J, Shum M, Atkin D, Foster A, Iyer G, et al. Research opportunities in emerging markets: an inter-disciplinary perspective from marketing, economics, and psychology. Cust Need Solut. (2015) 2:264–76. doi: 10.1007/s40547-015-0044-1

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

28. Albulescu C. Coronavirus and oil price crash. SSRN J. (2020) 1–13. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3553452

29. Carlsson-Szlezak P, Reeves M, Swartz P. What Coronavirus Could Mean for the Global Economy . Harvard Business Review (2020). Available online at: https://hbr.org/2020/03/what-coronavirus-could-mean-for-the-global-economy (accessed March 11, 2020).

30. Coronavirus: The world economy at risk. (2020). OECD Economic Outlook . Available online at: http://www.oecd.org/economic-outlook/ (accessed March 11, 2020).

31. International Monetary Fund. (2020). “Chapter 1-policies to support people during the COVID-19 pandemic,” in FISCAL MONITOR (International Monetary Fund). Available online at: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications (accessed May 07, 2020).

32. Jain J, Kumar A, Narayanan V, Ramaswamy RS, Sathiyarajeswaran P, Shree Devi MS, et al. Antiviral activity of ethanolic extract of Nilavembu Kudineer against dengue and chikungunya virus through in vitro evaluation. J Ayurveda Integr Med . (2019). doi: 10.1016/j.jaim.2018.05.006. [Epub ahead of print].

33. Advisory for Corona virus, Homoeopathy for Prevention of Corona virus Infections, Unani Medicines useful in symptomatic management of Corona Virus infection. Press Information Bureau . Available online at: pib.gov.in/Pressreleaseshare.aspx?PRID=1600895 (accessed February 03, 2020).

34. Bhatnagar T, Murhekar MV, Soneja M, Gupta N, Giri S, Wig N, et al. Lopinavir/ritonavir combination therapy amongst symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 patients in India: protocol for restricted public health emergency use. Indian J Med Res . (2020) 151:184–9. doi: 10.4103/ijmr.IJMR_502_20

35. Rathi S, Ish P, Kalantri A, Kalantri S. Hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis for COVID-19 contacts in India. Lancet Infectious Dis. (2020). doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30313-3. [Epub ahead of print].

36. Health C. for D. and R. Nucleic Acid Based Tests . FDA (2020). Available online at: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/vitro-diagnostics/nucleic-acid-based-tests (accessed May 05, 2020).

37. Aarogya Setu Mobile App. MyGov.in . (2020). Available online at: https://mygov.in/aarogya-setu-app/ (accessed May 04, 2020).

PubMed Abstract

38. Vasudha V. Coronavirus Outbreak: Ayush Pushes “Traditional Cure,” Med Council Backs Modern Drugs . The Economic Times (2020). Available online at: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/ayush-pushes-traditional-cure-med-council-backs-modern-drugs/articleshow/74680699.cms (accessed May 02, 2020).

39. Elfiky AA. Anti-HCV, nucleotide inhibitors, repurposing against COVID-19. Life Sci. (2020) 248:117477. doi: 10.1016/j.lfs.2020.117477

40. Teixeira da Silva JA. Convalescent plasma: a possible treatment of COVID-19 in India. Med J Armed Forces India . (2020). doi: 10.1016/j.mjafi.2020.04.006. [Epub ahead of print].

41. Sinha DK. COVID-19: Vaccine Development and Therapeutic Strategies . IndiaBioscience (2020). Available online at: https://indiabioscience.org/columns/general-science/covid-19-vaccine-development-and-therapeutic-strategies (accessed May 06, 2020).

42. Varghese MG, Rijal S. How India Must Prepare for a Second Wave of COVID-19 . Nature India (2020). Available online at: https://www.natureasia.com/en/nindia/article/10.1038/nindia.2020.80 (accessed May 06, 2020).

43. Koshy SM. Inspired By South Korea, Walk-In COVID-19 Test Kiosks Built In Kerala . NDTV.com (2020). Available online at: https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/coronavirus-inspired-by-south-korea-walk-in-test-kiosks-built-in-keralas-ernakulam-2207119 (accessed May 06, 2020).

44. MK N. Covid-19: Kerala Hospital Installs South Korea-Like Kiosks to Collect Samples . Livemint (2020). Available online at: https://www.livemint.com/news/india/covid-19-kerala-hospital-installs-south-korea-like-kiosks-to-collect-samples-11586234679849.html (accessed May 09, 2020).

45. DRDO. Covid-19 Sample Collection Kiosk (COVSACK) . Defence Research and Development Organisation - DRDO|GoI (2020). Available online at: https://drdo.gov.in/covid-19-sample-collection-kiosk-covsack (accessed May 09, 2020).

46. Vaidyanathan G. People power: how India is attempting to slow the coronavirus. Nature. (2020) 580:442. doi: 10.1038/d41586-020-01058-5

Keywords: COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, India, economy, safety measures

Citation: Kumar SU, Kumar DT, Christopher BP and Doss CGP (2020) The Rise and Impact of COVID-19 in India. Front. Med. 7:250. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2020.00250

Received: 19 March 2020; Accepted: 11 May 2020; Published: 22 May 2020.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2020 Kumar, Kumar, Christopher and Doss. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: C. George Priya Doss, georgepriyadoss@vit.ac.in

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

The impact of COVID-19 and the policy response in India

Subscribe to global connection, maurice kugler and maurice kugler professor of public policy, schar school of policy and government - george mason university shakti sinha shakti sinha senior fellow - world resources international (wri india).

July 13, 2020

Much has been written about how COVID-19 is affecting people in rich countries but less has been reported on what is happening in poor countries. Paradoxically, the first images of COVID-19 that India associates with are not ventilators or medical professionals in ICUs but of migrant laborers trudging back to their villages hundreds of miles away, lugging their belongings. With most of the economy shut down, the fragility of India’s labor market was patent. It is estimated that in the first wave, almost 10 million people returned to their villages, half a million of them walking or bicycling. After the economic stoppage, the International Labor Organization has projected that 400 million people in India risk falling into poverty .

Agriculture is the largest employer, at 42 percent of the workforce, but produces just 18 percent of GDP. Over 86 percent of all agricultural holdings have inefficient scale (below 2 hectares). Suppressed incomes due to low agricultural productivity prompt rural-urban migration. Migration is circular, as workers return for some seasons, such as harvesting.

Evidence of Indian labor market segmentation is widely available—with a small percentage of workers being employed formally, while the lion’s share of households relies on income from self-employment or precarious jobs without recourse to rights stipulated by labor regulations. Only about 10 percent of the workforce is formal with safe working conditions and social security. Perversely, modern-sector employment is becoming “informalized,” through outsourcing or hiring without direct contracts. The share of formal employment in the modern sector fell from 52 percent in 2005 to 45 percent in 2012. During this period, formal employment went up from 33.41 million to 38.56 million (about 15 percent), while nonagricultural informal employment increased from 160.83 million to 204.03 million (about 25 percent) .

Most informal workers labor for micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) that emerged as intermediate inputs and services suppliers to the modern sector. However, workers struggle to get paid, which the government identifies as great challenge. Payroll and other taxes, as well as limited access to subsidized credit for large firms, are disincentives to MSME growth. Although over half of India has smartphone access, relatively few can telework. Retail and manufacturing jobs require physical presence involving direct client interaction. Indeed, income for families unable to telework has fallen faster.

Related Books

Geoffrey Kemp

May 3, 2010

June 14, 2012

Sebastian Edwards, Nora Claudia Lustig

September 1, 1997

The government’s crisis response has mitigated damage, with a fiscal stimulus of 20 trillion rupees , almost 10 percent of GDP. Also, the Reserve Bank of India enacted decisive expansionary monetary policy . Yet, banks accessed only 520 billion rupees out of the emergency guaranteed credit window of 3 trillion rupees. In fact, corporate credit in June is lower than June last year by a wide margin after bank lending’s fall. S&P has estimated the nonperforming loans would increase by 14 percent this fiscal year . Corporations have deleveraged retiring old debts and hoarding cash, as have households. Recovery through investment and consumption has stalled . These trends are exacerbated due to the pandemic. The manufacturing Purchasing Managers Index (PMI) recovered 50 percent since May but at 47.2 it remains in negative territory. Services contribute over half of GDP but its PMI, even after bouncing back , remains low at 33.7 in June. Consumption of electricity, petrol, and diesel have regained from the lockdown lows but are still 10-18 percent below June 2019 levels . Agriculture has been the bright spot, with 50 percent higher monsoon crop sowing and fertilizer consumption up 100 percent. Unemployment levels had spiked to 23.5 percent but with a mid-June recovery to 8.5 percent—and then crept up again marginally.

The National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MNREGA) and supply of subsidized food grains have acted as useful buffers keeping unemployment down and ensuring social stability. Thirty-six million people sought work in May 2020 (25 million in May 2019). This went up to 40 million in June 2020 (average of 23.6 million during 2013-2019 period). The government has ramped up allocation to the highest level ever, totaling 1 trillion rupees. Similarly, in addition to a heavily subsidized supply of rice and wheat, a special scheme of free supply of 5 kilograms of wheat/rice per person for three months was started and since extended by another three months, covering 800 million people. There have also been cash transfers of 500 billion rupees to women and farmers .

However, MNREGA has an upper bound of 100 days guaranteed employment and it also does not cover urban areas. Agriculture cannot absorb more labor, with massive underlying disguised unemployment. A post-pandemic survey shows that the MSME sector expects earnings to fall up to 50 percent this year. Critically, the larger firms are perceived healthier. However, small and micro enterprises, who have minimal access to formal credit, constitute 99.2 percent of all MSMEs . These are the largest source of employment outside agriculture. Their inability to bounce back could see India face further economic and also social tensions. The economy is withstanding both supply and demand shocks, with the wholesale prices index declining sharply .

We identified labor market pressures toward increased poverty, both in the extensive margin (headcount) and intensive margin (deprivation depth). India needs to ramp up MNREGA, introduce a guaranteed urban employment scheme, and boost further cash transfers to poor households. Government efforts have been enormous in macroeconomic policy (fiscal stimulus and monetary loosening) to mitigate adversity but fiscal space is narrowing, requiring the World Bank and other international financial institutions to step up and help avert even greater hardship. Also, ongoing advances towards structural economic policy reforms have to continue.

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

Create a new collection
Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

Search in PubMed
Search in NLM Catalog
Add to Search

Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in India: An analysis of policy and technological interventions

Affiliations.

1 Economics Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi, India.
2 Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi, India.
PMID: 33520638
PMCID: PMC7837304
DOI: 10.1016/j.hlpt.2020.12.001

Objectives: Following a surge in cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in June 2020, India became the third-worst affected country worldwide. This study aims to analyse the underlying epidemiological situation in India and explain possible impacts of policy and technological changes.

Methods: Secondary data were utilized, including recently published literature from government sources, the COVID-19 India website and local media reports. These data were analysed, with a focus on the impact of policy and technological interventions.

Results: The spread of COVID-19 in India was initially characterized by fewer cases and lower case fatality rates compared with numbers in many developed countries, primarily due to a stringent lockdown and a demographic dividend. However, economic constraints forced a staggered lockdown exit strategy, resulting in a spike in COVID-19 cases. This factor, coupled with low spending on health as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), created mayhem because of inadequate numbers of hospital beds and ventilators and a lack of medical personnel, especially in the public health sector. Nevertheless, technological advances, supported by a strong research base, helped contain the damage resulting from the pandemic.

Conclusions: Following nationwide lockdown, the Indian economy was hit hard by unemployment and a steep decline in growth. The early implementation of lockdown initially decreased the doubling rate of cases and allowed time to upscale critical medical infrastructure. Measures such as asymptomatic testing, public-private partnerships, and technological advances will be essential until a vaccine can be developed and deployed in India.

Public interest summary: The spread of COVID-19 in India was initially characterized by lower case numbers and fewer deaths compared with numbers in many developed countries. This was mainly due to a stringent lockdown and demographic factors. However, economic constraints forced a staggered lockdown exit strategy, resulting in a spike in COVID-19 cases in June 2020. Subsequently, India became the third-worst affected country worldwide. Low spending on health as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) meant there was a shortage of hospital beds and ventilators and a lack of medical personnel, especially in the public health sector. Nevertheless, technological advances, supported by a strong research base, helped contain the health and economic damage resulting from the pandemic. In the future, measures such as asymptomatic testing, public-private partnerships, and technological advances will be essential until a vaccine against COVID-19 can be developed and rolled-out in India.

Keywords: Health; India; Pandemic; Policy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None declared.

State-wise share of COVID-19 confirmed…

State-wise share of COVID-19 confirmed cases and deaths (2020).

New cases of COVID-19 in…

New cases of COVID-19 in India during 2020.

Trends in confirmed, recovered and…

Trends in confirmed, recovered and deceased cases of COVID-19 (cumulative) during 2020.

COVID-19 case fatality rate in…

COVID-19 case fatality rate in the three worst-affected countries during 2020.

Evolution and spread of COVID-19…

Evolution and spread of COVID-19 across states during the first 100 days.

The percentage of confirmed COVID-19…

The percentage of confirmed COVID-19 cases by age group.

The percentage of deaths from…

The percentage of deaths from COVID-19 by age and sex.

The unemployment rate in India…

The unemployment rate in India during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Bench-marking the recovery rate from…

Bench-marking the recovery rate from COVID-19 in India versus the top-five COVID-19 affected…

Infrastructure dedicated to COVID-19.

Real GDP growth percentage (constant…

Real GDP growth percentage (constant 2011–12 prices).

Related information

Linkout - more resources, full text sources.

Elsevier Science
Europe PubMed Central
PubMed Central

Other Literature Sources

scite Smart Citations
Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Home — Essay Samples — Economics — Indian Economy — Impact Of Covid-19 On The Indian Economy

Impact of Covid-19 on The Indian Economy

Categories: Covid 19 India Indian Economy

About this sample

Words: 1417 |

Published: Feb 8, 2022

Words: 1417 | Pages: 3 | 8 min read

Introduction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_India
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341266520_Effect_of_COVID-19_on_the_Indian_Economy_and_Supply_Chain
https://etinsights.et-edge.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/KPMG-REPORT-compressed.pdf

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Let us write you an essay from scratch

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Heisenberg

Verified writer

Expert in: Nursing & Health Geography & Travel Economics

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 914 words

1 pages / 658 words

1 pages / 457 words

1 pages / 615 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Indian Economy

The Vaishya caste is one of the four major social classes in Hinduism, known as Varnas, and is traditionally associated with commerce, agriculture, and trade. The Vaishya caste plays a crucial role in Indian society, as it is [...]

The Indian financial system can be broadly classified into the formal (organized) financial system and the informal (unorganized) financial system. The formal financial system comes under the purview of the Ministry of [...]

An internship is on-the-job training for many professional jobs, similar to an apprenticeship, more often taken up by college and university students during his undergraduate or master degree in their free time to supplement [...]

RBI, the leader of the financial system, was established as a private institution in 1935. It was nationalized in 1949. This was followed by the nationalisation of the Imperial bank of India. One of the important milestones in [...]

This January marks five years since David Cameron first publically mentioned renegotiating Britain’s place within the European Union. Since then, the British political landscape has changed dramatically. We’ve seen two general [...]

Illegal wildlife trade across the world is worth billions of dollars each year and is one of the major threats to the survival of our most iconic species in the wildlife such as Rhinos, Tigers and Elephants. According to U.S., [...]

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

Getting ahead of coronavirus: Saving lives and livelihoods in India

The COVID-19 pandemic is the defining global health crisis of our time and the greatest global humanitarian challenge the world has faced since World War II. The virus has spread widely, and the number of cases is rising daily as governments work to slow its spread. India has moved quickly, implementing a proactive, nationwide, 21-day lockdown, with the goal of flattening the curve and using the time to plan and resource responses adequately.

Along with an unprecedented human toll, COVID-19 has triggered a deep economic crisis. The global economic impact could be broader than any that we have seen since the Great Depression. 1 In the full briefing materials accompanying Matt Craven, Linda Liu, Mihir Mysore, Shubham Singhal, Sven Smit, and Matt Wilson, “ COVID-19: Implications for business ,” March 2020, McKinsey’s estimates of the global economic impact of COVID-19 suggest that global GDP in 2020 could contract at 1.8 percent and 5.7 percent in scenarios A3 and A1, respectively. This means that India will face a corresponding shrinkage in global demand for its exports in addition to its domestic-production and -consumption challenges. To understand the probable economic outcomes and possible interventions, McKinsey spoke with more than 600 leaders, including senior economists, financial-market experts, and policy makers, in 100 companies across multiple sectors. Based on these inputs, we modeled estimates for three economic scenarios in India (Exhibit 1). 2 The economic scenarios for India are broadly based on McKinsey’s global scenarios in “ COVID-19: Implications for business ,” March 2020, tailored to the Indian situation. All estimates are directional rather than accurate projections or forecasts, and they will evolve over time with new data, inputs, and analysis.

In scenario 1, the economy could contract by about 10 percent in the first quarter of fiscal year 2021, with GDP growth of 1 to 2 percent in fiscal year 2021. In this scenario, the lockdown would be relaxed after April 15, 2020 (when the 21-day deadline is due to expire), with appropriate protocols put in place for the movement of goods and people after that. Our economic modeling suggests that even in this scenario of relatively quick rebound, the livelihoods of eight million workers, including many who are in the informal workforce, could be affected. In other words, eight million people could have their ability to subsist and afford basic necessities, such as food, housing, and clothing, put at severe risk. And with corporate and micro-, small-, and medium-size-enterprise (MSME) failure, nonperforming loans (NPLs) in the financial system could rise by three to four percentage points of loans. The amount of government spending required to protect and revive households, companies, and lenders could therefore be in the region of 6 lakh crore Indian rupees (around $79 billion), or 3 percent of GDP.

In scenario 2, the economy could contract sharply by around 20 percent in the first quarter of fiscal year 2021, with –2 to –3 percent growth for fiscal year 2021. Here, the lockdown would continue in roughly its current form until mid-May 2020, followed by a very gradual restarting of supply chains. This could put 32 million livelihoods at risk and swell NPLs by seven percentage points. The cost of stabilizing and protecting households, companies, and lenders could exceed 10 lakh crore Indian rupees (exceeding $130 billion), or more than 5 percent of GDP.

Scenario 3 could mean an even deeper economic contraction of around 8 to 10 percent for fiscal year 2021. This could occur if the virus flares up a few times over the rest of the year, necessitating more lockdowns, causing even greater reluctance among migrants to resume work, and ensuring a much slower rate of recovery.

Robust measures to stabilize and support households, businesses, and the financial system

Assuming scenario 2 plays out, the potential economic loss in India would vary by sector, with current-quarter output drops that are large in sectors such as aviation and lower in sectors such as IT-enabled services and pharmaceuticals (Exhibit 2). Current-quarter consumption could drop by more than 30 percent in discretionary categories, such as clothing and furnishings, and by up to 10 percent in areas such as food and utilities. Strained debt- service-coverage ratios would be anticipated in the travel, transport, and logistics; textiles; power; and hotel and entertainment sectors.

There could be solvency risk within the Indian financial system, as almost 25 percent of MSME and small- and medium-size-enterprise (SME) loans could slip into default, compared with 6 percent in the corporate sector (although the rate could be much higher in aviation, textiles, power, and construction) and 3 percent in the retail segment (mainly in personal loans for self-employed workers and small businesses). Liquidity risk would also need urgent attention as payments begin freezing in the corporate and SME supply chains. Attention will need to be given to the liquidity needs of banks and nonbanks with stretched liquidity-coverage ratios to ensure depositor confidence.

Given the magnitude of potential unemployment, business failure, and financial-system risk, a comprehensive package of fiscal and monetary interventions may need to be planned, keeping scenario 2 in mind. This might be triggered progressively as situations evolve and as actions are taken to move to the more favorable scenario 1 through effective public-health measures and graded lockdowns.

Further fiscal-, monetary-, and structural-measure possibilities

Several measures have already been announced to provide liquidity, limit the immediate NPL impact, and ease personal distress for needy households in India. These amount to around 0.8 percent of GDP. Additional measures could be considered to the tune of 10 lakh crore Indian rupees, or more than 5 percent of GDP in fiscal year 2021. All the estimated requirements may not necessarily be reflected in the fiscal deficit of the current year—for example, some support may be structured as contingent liabilities that only get reflected when they devolve. However, a package of this order of magnitude may be essential in supporting those dealing with the possible steep declines in aggregate demand and in protecting the financial system from the possible solvency and liquidity risks arising from stressed companies if scenario 2 or scenario 3 plays out.

Household demand could then be boosted beyond the support provided to needy households that the Indian government has already announced. Consideration could be given to an income-support program in which the government both pays for a share of the payroll for the 60 million informal contractual and permanent workers linked to companies and provides direct income support for the 135 million informal workers who are not on any form of company payroll. India’s foundational digital-identity infrastructure, Aadhaar, enables effective mechanisms for direct support, including through the Pradhan Mantri Jan-Dhan Yojana (PMJDY) and Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi (PM-KISAN) programs and to landless Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) beneficiaries. Concessions for home buyers, such as tax rebates for a time-bound period, could stimulate the housing market and unlock the job multiplier.

For bankruptcy protection and liquidity support, MSMEs could receive liquidity lines from their banks, refinanced by the Reserve Bank of India and a loan program for first-time borrowers could be administered through SIDBI. 3 Small Industries Development Bank of India. Substantial credit backstops from the government could be instituted for likely new NPLs Timely payments to MSMEs by large companies and governments could be encouraged by promoting bill discounting on existing platforms.

For large corporations, banks could be allowed to restructure the debt on their balance sheets, and procedural requirements for raising capital could be made less onerous. The Indian government could consider infusing capital through a temporary Troubled Asset Relief (TARP)-type program (such as through preferred equity) in a few distressed sectors (such as travel, logistics, auto, textiles, construction, and power), with appropriate conditions to safeguard workers and MSMEs in their value chains. Banks and nonbanks may also require similar measures to help strengthen their capital, along with measures to step up their liquidity and the liquidity in corporate-bond and government-securities markets.

To manage the macroeconomic consequences of a large stabilization package, the government would also need to consider clearly communicating to the markets and population that these measures are deep but temporary. Given that India’s fiscal resources are constrained, the Reserve Bank of India may need to finance a portion of such incremental government spending. The spending could be tracked as a COVID-19 portion of the budget to boost transparency. The inflationary effects may be low, as lockdowns severely constrict demand and the fiscal support provided would be a substitute for expenditure rather than additional stimulus. Price increases could, however, occur in some sectors, such as food, so appropriate steps would be needed to maintain harvests and keep the food supply chain operating smoothly.

Overall, devising a credible, systemwide, stabilization package would benefit from being executed in a timely fashion so it can influence the pace of recovery and help avoid severe damage to livelihoods, the economy, the financial sector, and society. Many global economies are also facing these issues and having to put in place their own stabilization packages, with similar intent.

Following the first wave of stabilization measures, attention could shift to implementing the structural reforms needed to increase investment and productivity, create jobs quickly, and improve fiscal health. This could mean introducing further reforms in infrastructure and construction and accelerating investments in health, affordable housing, and other urban infrastructure. States could accelerate spending, and institutions such as NIIF 4 National Investment and Infrastructure Fund. could deploy domestic and long-term foreign capital faster. Such reforms could also enable Make in India sectors to become globally competitive and boost exports (such as electronics, textiles, electric vehicles, and food processing), strengthen the financial sector, deepen household financial savings and capital markets, and accelerate asset monetization and privatization to raise resources.

Emergence from lockdown, safeguarding both lives and livelihoods

Countries that are experiencing COVID-19 have adopted different approaches to slow the spread of the virus. Some have tested extensively, carried out contact tracing, limited travel and large gatherings, encouraged physical distancing, and quarantined citizens. Others have implemented full lockdowns in cities with high infection rates and partial lockdowns in other regions, with strict protocols in place to prevent infections.

The pace and scale of opening up from lockdown for India may depend on the availability of the crucial testing capabilities that will be required to get a better handle on the spread of the virus, granular data and technology to track and trace infections, and the build-up of healthcare facilities to treat patients (such as hospital beds by district). In parallel, protection protocols, cocreated with industry, could be designed for different settings (such as mandis [rural markets], construction sites, factories, business-process-outsourcing [BPO] companies, urban transit, and rural–urban labor movement). As an example, industrial areas (such as Baddi, Vapi, and Tirupur) could be ring-fenced and made safe, with local dormitories set up for the labor force and minimal, controlled movement in and out of the site allowed. There could be on-site testing at factories and staggered shifts for workers. While the principles may be the same for construction sites and BPO companies, the specifics would differ.

A geographic lens could be overlaid to determine how quickly the lockdown could be lifted when new protection protocols are in place. Red, yellow, and green zones could be earmarked based on unambiguous criteria, with clear rules for economic activity, entry, and exit. The classification of areas could be updated frequently as the situation evolves. The definition of a “zone” would need to be granular (such as by ward, colony, and building cluster) to allow as much economic activity as is safely possible while targeting infection as accurately as possible. Since there is a very real possibility of the virus lingering on through the year, this microtargeting approach could help decelerate its spread while keeping livelihoods going.

The alternative approach of opening up select industry chains would be less feasible, given that sectors are tightly intertwined. A textile-export factory, for instance, would require chemicals for processing, paper and plastic for packaging, spare parts for its sewing machines, and consumables such as thread. Segregating industrial establishments by size would also be difficult, since smaller suppliers are often bound to the larger manufacturers.

Actions would need to be implemented locally, with different approaches for districts based on their characteristics (such as rural versus urban, industrial versus service oriented, strong versus weak healthcare infrastructure, and heavily infected versus not infected yet). India could consider using the last week of the current lockdown to gear up for local execution, equipping more than 700 of the most appropriate government officers with insights gained from across the world and from ongoing efforts in cities such as Mumbai and states such as Kerala, which are currently fighting the pandemic.

As part of a set of options to consider, based on prior lessons learned in India from repurposing and redeployment of needed skills and expertise for nationwide efforts, such as after floods and natural calamities, these officers could potentially be deputed to work with the district magistrates (DMs) in each district. They could cooperate in dynamically developing and helping execute locally tailored healthcare-expansion efforts, local- or state-level lockdown timetables, and back-to-work protocols. The DMs and deputized officers in districts could potentially be supported by cross-functional centers of excellence (COEs) in states or at the center. These COEs would have medical, administrative, social, economic, and business experts using their considerable knowledge to collect best practices, conduct rapid analysis, and provide valuable suggestions and recommendations to the districts to ensure high-quality implementation.

It is imperative that society preserve both lives and livelihoods. To do so, India can consider a concerted set of fiscal, monetary, and structural measures and explore ways to return from the lockdown that reflect its situation and respect that most important of tenets: the sanctity of human life.

Rajat Gupta is a senior partner and Anu Madgavkar is a partner in McKinsey’s Mumbai office.

The authors wish to thank the leaders of McKinsey India, particularly Kanmani Chockalingam, Vikram Kapur, Alok Kshirsagar, Akash Lal, Renny Thomas, and Hanish Yadav, for their contributions to this article. They also wish to thank Rakesh Mohan—a senior fellow at Yale University’s Jackson Institute for Global Affairs, external adviser to McKinsey Global Institute, and former deputy governor of the Reserve Bank of India—for his contributions to this article.

Explore a career with us

Safeguarding our lives and our livelihoods: The imperative of our time

How to restart national economies during the coronavirus crisis

Beyond coronavirus: The path to the next normal

Log in using your username and password

Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
Latest content
Current issue
BMJ Journals

http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1512-4471 Emily Long 1 ,
Susan Patterson 1 ,
Karen Maxwell 1 ,
Carolyn Blake 1 ,
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7342-4566 Raquel Bosó Pérez 1 ,
Ruth Lewis 1 ,
Mark McCann 1 ,
Julie Riddell 1 ,
Kathryn Skivington 1 ,
Rachel Wilson-Lowe 1 ,
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4409-6601 Kirstin R Mitchell 2
1 MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit , University of Glasgow , Glasgow , UK
2 MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, Institute of Health & Wellbeing , University of Glasgow , Glasgow , UK
Correspondence to Dr Emily Long, MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G3 7HR, UK; emily.long{at}glasgow.ac.uk

This essay examines key aspects of social relationships that were disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic. It focuses explicitly on relational mechanisms of health and brings together theory and emerging evidence on the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic to make recommendations for future public health policy and recovery. We first provide an overview of the pandemic in the UK context, outlining the nature of the public health response. We then introduce four distinct domains of social relationships: social networks, social support, social interaction and intimacy, highlighting the mechanisms through which the pandemic and associated public health response drastically altered social interactions in each domain. Throughout the essay, the lens of health inequalities, and perspective of relationships as interconnecting elements in a broader system, is used to explore the varying impact of these disruptions. The essay concludes by providing recommendations for longer term recovery ensuring that the social relational cost of COVID-19 is adequately considered in efforts to rebuild.

inequalities

Data availability statement

Data sharing not applicable as no data sets generated and/or analysed for this study. Data sharing not applicable as no data sets generated or analysed for this essay.

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2021-216690

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Introduction

Infectious disease pandemics, including SARS and COVID-19, demand intrapersonal behaviour change and present highly complex challenges for public health. 1 A pandemic of an airborne infection, spread easily through social contact, assails human relationships by drastically altering the ways through which humans interact. In this essay, we draw on theories of social relationships to examine specific ways in which relational mechanisms key to health and well-being were disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Relational mechanisms refer to the processes between people that lead to change in health outcomes.

At the time of writing, the future surrounding COVID-19 was uncertain. Vaccine programmes were being rolled out in countries that could afford them, but new and more contagious variants of the virus were also being discovered. The recovery journey looked long, with continued disruption to social relationships. The social cost of COVID-19 was only just beginning to emerge, but the mental health impact was already considerable, 2 3 and the inequality of the health burden stark. 4 Knowledge of the epidemiology of COVID-19 accrued rapidly, but evidence of the most effective policy responses remained uncertain.

The initial response to COVID-19 in the UK was reactive and aimed at reducing mortality, with little time to consider the social implications, including for interpersonal and community relationships. The terminology of ‘social distancing’ quickly became entrenched both in public and policy discourse. This equation of physical distance with social distance was regrettable, since only physical proximity causes viral transmission, whereas many forms of social proximity (eg, conversations while walking outdoors) are minimal risk, and are crucial to maintaining relationships supportive of health and well-being.

The aim of this essay is to explore four key relational mechanisms that were impacted by the pandemic and associated restrictions: social networks, social support, social interaction and intimacy. We use relational theories and emerging research on the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic response to make three key recommendations: one regarding public health responses; and two regarding social recovery. Our understanding of these mechanisms stems from a ‘systems’ perspective which casts social relationships as interdependent elements within a connected whole. 5

Social networks

Social networks characterise the individuals and social connections that compose a system (such as a workplace, community or society). Social relationships range from spouses and partners, to coworkers, friends and acquaintances. They vary across many dimensions, including, for example, frequency of contact and emotional closeness. Social networks can be understood both in terms of the individuals and relationships that compose the network, as well as the overall network structure (eg, how many of your friends know each other).

Social networks show a tendency towards homophily, or a phenomenon of associating with individuals who are similar to self. 6 This is particularly true for ‘core’ network ties (eg, close friends), while more distant, sometimes called ‘weak’ ties tend to show more diversity. During the height of COVID-19 restrictions, face-to-face interactions were often reduced to core network members, such as partners, family members or, potentially, live-in roommates; some ‘weak’ ties were lost, and interactions became more limited to those closest. Given that peripheral, weaker social ties provide a diversity of resources, opinions and support, 7 COVID-19 likely resulted in networks that were smaller and more homogenous.

Such changes were not inevitable nor necessarily enduring, since social networks are also adaptive and responsive to change, in that a disruption to usual ways of interacting can be replaced by new ways of engaging (eg, Zoom). Yet, important inequalities exist, wherein networks and individual relationships within networks are not equally able to adapt to such changes. For example, individuals with a large number of newly established relationships (eg, university students) may have struggled to transfer these relationships online, resulting in lost contacts and a heightened risk of social isolation. This is consistent with research suggesting that young adults were the most likely to report a worsening of relationships during COVID-19, whereas older adults were the least likely to report a change. 8

Lastly, social connections give rise to emergent properties of social systems, 9 where a community-level phenomenon develops that cannot be attributed to any one member or portion of the network. For example, local area-based networks emerged due to geographic restrictions (eg, stay-at-home orders), resulting in increases in neighbourly support and local volunteering. 10 In fact, research suggests that relationships with neighbours displayed the largest net gain in ratings of relationship quality compared with a range of relationship types (eg, partner, colleague, friend). 8 Much of this was built from spontaneous individual interactions within local communities, which together contributed to the ‘community spirit’ that many experienced. 11 COVID-19 restrictions thus impacted the personal social networks and the structure of the larger networks within the society.

Social support

Social support, referring to the psychological and material resources provided through social interaction, is a critical mechanism through which social relationships benefit health. In fact, social support has been shown to be one of the most important resilience factors in the aftermath of stressful events. 12 In the context of COVID-19, the usual ways in which individuals interact and obtain social support have been severely disrupted.

One such disruption has been to opportunities for spontaneous social interactions. For example, conversations with colleagues in a break room offer an opportunity for socialising beyond one’s core social network, and these peripheral conversations can provide a form of social support. 13 14 A chance conversation may lead to advice helpful to coping with situations or seeking formal help. Thus, the absence of these spontaneous interactions may mean the reduction of indirect support-seeking opportunities. While direct support-seeking behaviour is more effective at eliciting support, it also requires significantly more effort and may be perceived as forceful and burdensome. 15 The shift to homeworking and closure of community venues reduced the number of opportunities for these spontaneous interactions to occur, and has, second, focused them locally. Consequently, individuals whose core networks are located elsewhere, or who live in communities where spontaneous interaction is less likely, have less opportunity to benefit from spontaneous in-person supportive interactions.

However, alongside this disruption, new opportunities to interact and obtain social support have arisen. The surge in community social support during the initial lockdown mirrored that often seen in response to adverse events (eg, natural disasters 16 ). COVID-19 restrictions that confined individuals to their local area also compelled them to focus their in-person efforts locally. Commentators on the initial lockdown in the UK remarked on extraordinary acts of generosity between individuals who belonged to the same community but were unknown to each other. However, research on adverse events also tells us that such community support is not necessarily maintained in the longer term. 16

Meanwhile, online forms of social support are not bound by geography, thus enabling interactions and social support to be received from a wider network of people. Formal online social support spaces (eg, support groups) existed well before COVID-19, but have vastly increased since. While online interactions can increase perceived social support, it is unclear whether remote communication technologies provide an effective substitute from in-person interaction during periods of social distancing. 17 18 It makes intuitive sense that the usefulness of online social support will vary by the type of support offered, degree of social interaction and ‘online communication skills’ of those taking part. Youth workers, for instance, have struggled to keep vulnerable youth engaged in online youth clubs, 19 despite others finding a positive association between amount of digital technology used by individuals during lockdown and perceived social support. 20 Other research has found that more frequent face-to-face contact and phone/video contact both related to lower levels of depression during the time period of March to August 2020, but the negative effect of a lack of contact was greater for those with higher levels of usual sociability. 21 Relatedly, important inequalities in social support exist, such that individuals who occupy more socially disadvantaged positions in society (eg, low socioeconomic status, older people) tend to have less access to social support, 22 potentially exacerbated by COVID-19.

Social and interactional norms

Interactional norms are key relational mechanisms which build trust, belonging and identity within and across groups in a system. Individuals in groups and societies apply meaning by ‘approving, arranging and redefining’ symbols of interaction. 23 A handshake, for instance, is a powerful symbol of trust and equality. Depending on context, not shaking hands may symbolise a failure to extend friendship, or a failure to reach agreement. The norms governing these symbols represent shared values and identity; and mutual understanding of these symbols enables individuals to achieve orderly interactions, establish supportive relationship accountability and connect socially. 24 25

Physical distancing measures to contain the spread of COVID-19 radically altered these norms of interaction, particularly those used to convey trust, affinity, empathy and respect (eg, hugging, physical comforting). 26 As epidemic waves rose and fell, the work to negotiate these norms required intense cognitive effort; previously taken-for-granted interactions were re-examined, factoring in current restriction levels, own and (assumed) others’ vulnerability and tolerance of risk. This created awkwardness, and uncertainty, for example, around how to bring closure to an in-person interaction or convey warmth. The instability in scripted ways of interacting created particular strain for individuals who already struggled to encode and decode interactions with others (eg, those who are deaf or have autism spectrum disorder); difficulties often intensified by mask wearing. 27

Large social gatherings—for example, weddings, school assemblies, sporting events—also present key opportunities for affirming and assimilating interactional norms, building cohesion and shared identity and facilitating cooperation across social groups. 28 Online ‘equivalents’ do not easily support ‘social-bonding’ activities such as singing and dancing, and rarely enable chance/spontaneous one-on-one conversations with peripheral/weaker network ties (see the Social networks section) which can help strengthen bonds across a larger network. The loss of large gatherings to celebrate rites of passage (eg, bar mitzvah, weddings) has additional relational costs since these events are performed by and for communities to reinforce belonging, and to assist in transitioning to new phases of life. 29 The loss of interaction with diverse others via community and large group gatherings also reduces intergroup contact, which may then tend towards more prejudiced outgroup attitudes. While online interaction can go some way to mimicking these interaction norms, there are key differences. A sense of anonymity, and lack of in-person emotional cues, tends to support norms of polarisation and aggression in expressing differences of opinion online. And while online platforms have potential to provide intergroup contact, the tendency of much social media to form homogeneous ‘echo chambers’ can serve to further reduce intergroup contact. 30 31

Intimacy relates to the feeling of emotional connection and closeness with other human beings. Emotional connection, through romantic, friendship or familial relationships, fulfils a basic human need 32 and strongly benefits health, including reduced stress levels, improved mental health, lowered blood pressure and reduced risk of heart disease. 32 33 Intimacy can be fostered through familiarity, feeling understood and feeling accepted by close others. 34

Intimacy via companionship and closeness is fundamental to mental well-being. Positively, the COVID-19 pandemic has offered opportunities for individuals to (re)connect and (re)strengthen close relationships within their household via quality time together, following closure of many usual external social activities. Research suggests that the first full UK lockdown period led to a net gain in the quality of steady relationships at a population level, 35 but amplified existing inequalities in relationship quality. 35 36 For some in single-person households, the absence of a companion became more conspicuous, leading to feelings of loneliness and lower mental well-being. 37 38 Additional pandemic-related relational strain 39 40 resulted, for some, in the initiation or intensification of domestic abuse. 41 42

Physical touch is another key aspect of intimacy, a fundamental human need crucial in maintaining and developing intimacy within close relationships. 34 Restrictions on social interactions severely restricted the number and range of people with whom physical affection was possible. The reduction in opportunity to give and receive affectionate physical touch was not experienced equally. Many of those living alone found themselves completely without physical contact for extended periods. The deprivation of physical touch is evidenced to take a heavy emotional toll. 43 Even in future, once physical expressions of affection can resume, new levels of anxiety over germs may introduce hesitancy into previously fluent blending of physical and verbal intimate social connections. 44

The pandemic also led to shifts in practices and norms around sexual relationship building and maintenance, as individuals adapted and sought alternative ways of enacting sexual intimacy. This too is important, given that intimate sexual activity has known benefits for health. 45 46 Given that social restrictions hinged on reducing household mixing, possibilities for partnered sexual activity were primarily guided by living arrangements. While those in cohabiting relationships could potentially continue as before, those who were single or in non-cohabiting relationships generally had restricted opportunities to maintain their sexual relationships. Pornography consumption and digital partners were reported to increase since lockdown. 47 However, online interactions are qualitatively different from in-person interactions and do not provide the same opportunities for physical intimacy.

Recommendations and conclusions

In the sections above we have outlined the ways in which COVID-19 has impacted social relationships, showing how relational mechanisms key to health have been undermined. While some of the damage might well self-repair after the pandemic, there are opportunities inherent in deliberative efforts to build back in ways that facilitate greater resilience in social and community relationships. We conclude by making three recommendations: one regarding public health responses to the pandemic; and two regarding social recovery.

Recommendation 1: explicitly count the relational cost of public health policies to control the pandemic

Effective handling of a pandemic recognises that social, economic and health concerns are intricately interwoven. It is clear that future research and policy attention must focus on the social consequences. As described above, policies which restrict physical mixing across households carry heavy and unequal relational costs. These include for individuals (eg, loss of intimate touch), dyads (eg, loss of warmth, comfort), networks (eg, restricted access to support) and communities (eg, loss of cohesion and identity). Such costs—and their unequal impact—should not be ignored in short-term efforts to control an epidemic. Some public health responses—restrictions on international holiday travel and highly efficient test and trace systems—have relatively small relational costs and should be prioritised. At a national level, an earlier move to proportionate restrictions, and investment in effective test and trace systems, may help prevent escalation of spread to the point where a national lockdown or tight restrictions became an inevitability. Where policies with relational costs are unavoidable, close attention should be paid to the unequal relational impact for those whose personal circumstances differ from normative assumptions of two adult families. This includes consideration of whether expectations are fair (eg, for those who live alone), whether restrictions on social events are equitable across age group, religious/ethnic groupings and social class, and also to ensure that the language promoted by such policies (eg, households; families) is not exclusionary. 48 49 Forethought to unequal impacts on social relationships should thus be integral to the work of epidemic preparedness teams.

Recommendation 2: intelligently balance online and offline ways of relating

A key ingredient for well-being is ‘getting together’ in a physical sense. This is fundamental to a human need for intimate touch, physical comfort, reinforcing interactional norms and providing practical support. Emerging evidence suggests that online ways of relating cannot simply replace physical interactions. But online interaction has many benefits and for some it offers connections that did not exist previously. In particular, online platforms provide new forms of support for those unable to access offline services because of mobility issues (eg, older people) or because they are geographically isolated from their support community (eg, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) youth). Ultimately, multiple forms of online and offline social interactions are required to meet the needs of varying groups of people (eg, LGBTQ, older people). Future research and practice should aim to establish ways of using offline and online support in complementary and even synergistic ways, rather than veering between them as social restrictions expand and contract. Intelligent balancing of online and offline ways of relating also pertains to future policies on home and flexible working. A decision to switch to wholesale or obligatory homeworking should consider the risk to relational ‘group properties’ of the workplace community and their impact on employees’ well-being, focusing in particular on unequal impacts (eg, new vs established employees). Intelligent blending of online and in-person working is required to achieve flexibility while also nurturing supportive networks at work. Intelligent balance also implies strategies to build digital literacy and minimise digital exclusion, as well as coproducing solutions with intended beneficiaries.

Recommendation 3: build stronger and sustainable localised communities

In balancing offline and online ways of interacting, there is opportunity to capitalise on the potential for more localised, coherent communities due to scaled-down travel, homeworking and local focus that will ideally continue after restrictions end. There are potential economic benefits after the pandemic, such as increased trade as home workers use local resources (eg, coffee shops), but also relational benefits from stronger relationships around the orbit of the home and neighbourhood. Experience from previous crises shows that community volunteer efforts generated early on will wane over time in the absence of deliberate work to maintain them. Adequately funded partnerships between local government, third sector and community groups are required to sustain community assets that began as a direct response to the pandemic. Such partnerships could work to secure green spaces and indoor (non-commercial) meeting spaces that promote community interaction. Green spaces in particular provide a triple benefit in encouraging physical activity and mental health, as well as facilitating social bonding. 50 In building local communities, small community networks—that allow for diversity and break down ingroup/outgroup views—may be more helpful than the concept of ‘support bubbles’, which are exclusionary and less sustainable in the longer term. Rigorously designed intervention and evaluation—taking a systems approach—will be crucial in ensuring scale-up and sustainability.

The dramatic change to social interaction necessitated by efforts to control the spread of COVID-19 created stark challenges but also opportunities. Our essay highlights opportunities for learning, both to ensure the equity and humanity of physical restrictions, and to sustain the salutogenic effects of social relationships going forward. The starting point for capitalising on this learning is recognition of the disruption to relational mechanisms as a key part of the socioeconomic and health impact of the pandemic. In recovery planning, a general rule is that what is good for decreasing health inequalities (such as expanding social protection and public services and pursuing green inclusive growth strategies) 4 will also benefit relationships and safeguard relational mechanisms for future generations. Putting this into action will require political will.

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication.

Not required.

Office for National Statistics (ONS)
Ford T , et al
Riordan R ,
Ford J , et al
Glonti K , et al
McPherson JM ,
Smith-Lovin L
Granovetter MS
Fancourt D et al
Stadtfeld C
Office for Civil Society
Cook J et al
Rodriguez-Llanes JM ,
Guha-Sapir D
Patulny R et al
Granovetter M
Winkeler M ,
Filipp S-H ,
Kaniasty K ,
de Terte I ,
Guilaran J , et al
Wright KB ,
Martin J et al
Gabbiadini A ,
Baldissarri C ,
Durante F , et al
Sommerlad A ,
Marston L ,
Huntley J , et al
Turner RJ ,
Bicchieri C
Brennan G et al
Watson-Jones RE ,
Amichai-Hamburger Y ,
McKenna KYA
Page-Gould E ,
Aron A , et al
Pietromonaco PR ,
Timmerman GM
Bradbury-Jones C ,
Mikocka-Walus A ,
Klas A , et al
Marshall L ,
Steptoe A ,
Stanley SM ,
Campbell AM
↵ (ONS), O.f.N.S., Domestic abuse during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, England and Wales . Available: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/domesticabuseduringthecoronaviruscovid19pandemicenglandandwales/november2020
Rosenberg M ,
Hensel D , et al
Banerjee D ,
Bruner DW , et al
Bavel JJV ,
Baicker K ,
Boggio PS , et al
van Barneveld K ,
Quinlan M ,
Kriesler P , et al
Mitchell R ,
de Vries S , et al

Twitter @karenmaxSPHSU, @Mark_McCann, @Rwilsonlowe, @KMitchinGlasgow

Contributors EL and KM led on the manuscript conceptualisation, review and editing. SP, KM, CB, RBP, RL, MM, JR, KS and RW-L contributed to drafting and revising the article. All authors assisted in revising the final draft.

Funding The research reported in this publication was supported by the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_00022/1, MC_UU_00022/3) and the Chief Scientist Office (SPHSU11, SPHSU14). EL is also supported by MRC Skills Development Fellowship Award (MR/S015078/1). KS and MM are also supported by a Medical Research Council Strategic Award (MC_PC_13027).

Competing interests None declared.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on agriculture in India: Cross-sectional results from a nationally representative survey

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – original draft

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliations Global Academy of Agriculture and Food Systems, The University of Edinburgh, Midlothian, United Kingdom, Public Health Foundation of India, New Delhi, India

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – original draft

Affiliation Council on Energy, Environment and Water, New Delhi, India

Roles Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Department of Management, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

Roles Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Public Health Foundation of India, New Delhi, India

Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Global Academy of Agriculture and Food Systems, The University of Edinburgh, Midlothian, United Kingdom

Roles Methodology

Affiliation Indian Institute of Foreign Trade, New Delhi, India

Roles Data curation

Roles Conceptualization

Affiliation Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, Hyderabad, India

Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Lindsay M. Jaacks,
Niti Gupta,
Jagjit Plage,
Ashish Awasthi,
Divya Veluguri,
Sanjay Rastogi,
Elena Dall’Agnese,
GV Ramanjaneyulu,
Abhishek Jain

Published: August 18, 2022
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026
Peer Review
Reader Comments

21 Oct 2022: Jaacks LM, Gupta N, Plage J, Awasthi A, Veluguri D, et al. (2022) Correction: Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Agriculture in India: Cross-Sectional Results from a Nationally Representative Survey. PLOS Sustainability and Transformation 1(10): e0000033. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000033 View correction

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted agriculture in India in many ways, yet no nationally representative survey has been conducted to quantify these impacts. The three objectives of this study were to evaluate how the pandemic has influenced: (1) cropping patterns and input use, (2) farmers’ willingness to adopt sustainable agricultural practices, and (3) farmers’ COVID-19 symptoms. Phone surveys were conducted between December 2020 and January 2021 with farmers who had previously participated in a nationally representative survey. Values are reported as weighted percent (95% confidence interval). A total of 3,637 farmers completed the survey; 59% (56–61%) were small/marginal farmers; 72% (69–74%) were male; and 52% (49–55%) had a below poverty line ration card. A majority of farmers (84% [82–86%]) reported cultivating the same crops in 2019 and 2020. Farmers who reported a change in their cropping patterns were more likely to be cultivating vegetables (p = 0.001) and soybean (p<0.001) and less likely to be cultivating rice (p<0.001). Concerning inputs, 66% (63–68%) of farmers reported no change in fertilizers; 66% (64–69%) reported no change in pesticides; and 59% (56–62%) reported no change in labor. More than half of farmers (62% [59–65%]) were interested in trying sustainable farming, primarily because of government schemes or because their peers were practicing it. About one-fifth (18% [15–21%]) of farmers reported COVID-19 symptoms in the past month (cough, fever, or shortness of breath) and among those with symptoms, 37% (28–47%) reported it affected their ability to work. In conclusion, COVID-19 infections had started to impact farmers’ productivity even during the first wave in India. Most farmers continued to grow the same crops with no change in input use. However, many expressed an interest in learning more about practicing sustainable farming. Findings will inform future directions for resilient agri-food systems.

Author summary

Nearly half of the Indian population is employed in agriculture, yet no nationally representative survey has explored the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on farmers. We leveraged a pre-existing nationally representative sample of 20 states/union territories to conduct surveys via phone interview between December 2020 and January 2021 with 3,637 farmers. This period coincided with the end of the first wave of COVID-19 (which peaked in mid-September 2020) and the end of the Kharif (monsoon) season–the major agricultural season when rice is primarily cultivated. Our three objectives were to evaluate how the pandemic has influenced: (1) cropping patterns and the use of inputs such as fertilizers, pesticides, and labor; (2) farmers’ willingness to adopt sustainable agricultural practices such as organic farming; and (3) farmers’ COVID-19 symptoms. We found that symptoms associated with COVID-19 had started to impact farmers’ productivity even during the first wave in India. Most farmers continue to grow the same crops with no change in input use. However, many expressed an interest in learning about sustainable farming practices. Among the farmers who did change their cropping pattern, they were more likely to be growing nutrient-dense crops (vegetables) instead of rice. Findings will inform future directions for resilient agri-food systems.

Citation: Jaacks LM, Gupta N, Plage J, Awasthi A, Veluguri D, Rastogi S, et al. (2022) Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on agriculture in India: Cross-sectional results from a nationally representative survey. PLOS Sustain Transform 1(8): e0000026. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026

Editor: Prajal Pradhan, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), GERMANY

Received: February 4, 2022; Accepted: July 9, 2022; Published: August 18, 2022

Copyright: © 2022 Jaacks et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: De-identified participant data is available at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/YOOU7C .

Funding: Funding to support data collection was provided by the Council on Energy, Environment and Water (AJ), The Royal Society of Edinburgh and the Scottish Government (LMJ), discretionary faculty research funds from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health (LMJ), and Medical Research Council/UK Research and Innovation (LMJ). ED received salary support from the Royal Society of Edinburgh and the Scottish Government for this work. LMJ received salary support from Medical Research Council/UK Research and Innovation for this work. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Since its initial outbreak in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has killed more than 6 million people globally [ 1 ]. In addition, more than 100 million people are estimated to have ‘long COVID’ globally, with the highest rates of long COVID reported in Asia [ 2 ]. Thus, the COVID-19 pandemic will have long-lasting effects on population health and wellbeing. In addition, supply chain disruptions arising from government responses to control the pandemic, i.e. lockdowns and border closures, have led to a re-emergence of debates on the vulnerabilities of globalized value chains [ 3 ]. Finally, the pandemic and pandemic response led to the largest global economic crisis in more than a century with the world economy shrinking by approximately 3% and global poverty increasing for the first time in a generation [ 4 ]. Given that agriculture is the largest employer in most developing economies [ 5 ] and the important role agriculture plays in food security, an in-depth evaluation of this particular sector is warranted.

India’s agricultural system is largely based on input-intensive monocropping of staple crops. Two-thirds of irrigated land and one-third of unirrigated land is cultivated with paddy and wheat [ 6 ]. With regards to inputs, 90% of irrigated land and 63% of unirrigated land is treated with synthetic fertilizer and approximately 40% of agricultural land is treated with synthetic pesticides [ 6 ]. While there has been an increase in organic farming and other sustainable approaches such as natural farming in recent years, it still makes up less than 2% of all cultivated land [ 7 , 8 ]. The cost of cultivation has been increasing [ 9 ] and yields of rice and wheat have been stagnating [ 10 ], resulting in more than half of agricultural households being in debt [ 11 ]. Thus, even before the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a crisis among Indian farmers.

In 2020, as a result of public health interventions to prevent the spread of COVID-19, there were major disruptions to India’s agri-supply chains. A phone survey of a convenience sample of Indian farmers across 12 states conducted in May 2020–during the first lockdown–found that farmers struggled to sell their produce because the market price was too low or they could not access the markets due to travel restrictions [ 12 ]. Moreover, about half of farmers reported the lockdown had affected their ability to sow for the upcoming season due to labor not being available and not being able to access or afford inputs such as seeds, fertilizer, and pesticides [ 12 ]. One might expect that the high cost of these products and disruption to accessing them during the pandemic may have led some farmers to consider agricultural practices that do not rely on external inputs, such as organic farming, natural farming, and other sustainable agricultural practices. At the same time, from the demand-side, the pandemic and increasing health-consciousness among consumers in India has stimulated growth of the organic market [ 13 ].

To address the aforementioned disruptions to the agriculture sector, the Finance Minister announced a COVID-19 economic package worth 1.5 trillion Indian Rupees (INR) (~20 billion US Dollars [USD]) aimed at strengthening infrastructure, logistics, and capacity building [ 14 ]. A majority of the funds went to setting up an “Agri Infrastructure Fund” to finance projects at the farm gate and aggregation points [ 14 ]. Other aspects of the package included the promotion of herb/medicinal plant cultivation and the extension of “Operation Greens” from tomato, onion, and potato to all fruits and vegetables [ 14 ]. These new initiatives may also shift agricultural practices, particularly cropping patterns. One previous survey found that more than 90% of farmers who were monocroppers in Kharif 2019 were monocroppers in Kharif 2020–and primarily cultivating rice–suggesting there has not been a major shift in cropping patterns as a result of the pandemic [ 15 ], but further research is needed to confirm this observation.

To date, no nationally representative study has been conducted among Indian farmers nor has any study explored whether the pandemic has shifted farmers’ crop choices, input use, and willingness to adopt more sustainable practices. Moreover, early in the pandemic–i.e., in May 2020–individuals living in urban slums were nearly twice as likely to have been infected with COVID-19 (Immunoglobulin G antibody positive in a national seroprevalence study) as compared to individuals in rural areas [ 16 ]. However, by mid-September 2020, when India’s first wave of COVID-19 peaked, rural areas had also experienced a rise in cases [ 17 ]. Whether or not this affected farmers’ ability to work has not been explored. Given that different crops have different labor requirements [ 18 ] and sustainable agricultural practices tend to be more labor-intensive [ 19 ], one might expect COVID-19 infection to affect a farmer’s decision to cultivate a certain crop or adopt chemical-free practices.

There are multiple pathways through which agriculture impacts food and nutrition security [ 20 ]. Agricultural production is a direct source of food for farmers and a source of income that can be used to purchase food. Agriculture also has indirect effects on nutrition security through influencing expenditures on health care, education, and improved water and sanitation as well as women’s empowerment and caring practices. Farming systems that promote crop diversity, such as agroecology, may have an even greater positive effect on nutrition security [ 21 ]. Indeed, during the first COVID-19 lockdown in India, it was observed that farmers who cultivated two or more crops were less likely to experience a decline in dietary diversity than farmers who cultivated one crop (i.e., monocroppers) [ 15 ]. Thus, any impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on agriculture may have downstream effects on food and nutrition security.

There were three primary objectives of this study. First, to understand how the COVID-19 pandemic has influenced cropping patterns and the use of inputs by Indian farmers. Second, to evaluate how the COVID-19 pandemic has influenced their willingness to adopt sustainable agricultural practices. Third, to monitor if Indian farmers are experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 that disrupt their work activities. In addition, a secondary objective was to evaluate food insecurity and diet quality in the most vulnerable group of farmers, namely, agricultural laborers. Together, findings from these objectives deepen our understanding of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on national food security and future directions for resilient agri-food systems.

Characteristics of study sample

Of the 5,200 participants called, 4,099 (79%) answered the call and 3,637 (89%) of those who answered consented to participate ( Fig 1 ). Of the total consented participants, 3,266 were farmers and the remaining 371 were agricultural laborers. Not having time was the most common reason reported for not participating (40%). Twenty states/union territories (herein ‘states’) were represented in the sample ( S1 Table ). State-wise sample sizes ranged from 2 (Delhi and Uttarakhand) to 419 (Uttar Pradesh). The sample size was particularly small for Delhi (n = 2), Haryana (n = 16), and Punjab (n = 19), partly because farmer protests were going on at the time of the survey.

PPT PowerPoint slide
PNG larger image
TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.g001

The weighted mean farm size was 2.11 ha, ranging from 0.004 to 23.8 ha; 59% (95% confidence interval [CI], 56–61%) of participants were small/marginal farmers. A majority of participants were male and middle-aged; about one-third lived in households with 6 or more people; and 17% (15–19%) were illiterate ( Table 1 ). About one-third reported belonging to Other Backward Caste (OBC) and half reported having a Below Poverty Line (BPL) ration card. Landless and small/marginal farmers had smaller household sizes (p = 0.005) and were more likely to have a BPL ration card (p = 0.001).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.t001

Change in cropping patterns and input use during the COVID-19 pandemic

A majority of participants cultivated in both 2019 and 2020 (83% [95% CI, 80–85%], data not shown). Among these participants, 76% (73–79%) reported no change in the area of land cultivated on their farms ( Table 2 ). The remaining 21% (18–24%) reported an increase in cultivated land and 3% (2–4%) a decrease in cultivated land. At the state level, the percent reporting no change in the area of land cultivated on their farms ranged from 41% (28–56%) in Assam to 94% (89–96%) in Gujarat ( S2 Table ). In Assam and Odisha, a much larger proportion of farmers reported an increase in the amount of land cultivated: 57% (42–71%) and 50% (39–60%), respectively ( S2 Table ). The most commonly reported reason for a change in the extent of land cultivated was a financial loss during the lockdown, which was reported by 53% (46–60%) of farmers ( Fig 2 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.g002

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.t002

With regards to cropping pattern, 84% (95% CI, 82–86%) of farmers reported cultivating the same crops in 2019 and 2020 ( Table 2 ). Among those who reported a change in the type of crop, 41% (34–49%) said it was a temporary change, but 32% (25–39%) said they were considering a permanent change. The reporting pattern was similar across all states, except Assam and Karnataka, where 36% (22–53%) and 48% (41–55%), respectively, reported a change in their cropping pattern ( S2 Table ). Rice and wheat were the most commonly cultivated crops in both Kharif 2019 and 2020 followed by pulses, vegetables, and mustard ( Fig 3 ). Vegetables were the most commonly cultivated crops in kitchen gardens with other crops (including fruit) rarely cultivated in kitchen gardens.

‘Rice’ includes basmati and other. ‘Pulses’ includes tur, urad, gram, moong, and other. Crops were presented if they were reported by >5% of participants. Rapeseed, other oilseeds, fruit, coconut, jute, and spices were reported by <5% of participants and were therefore not presented.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.g003

Farmers who changed their cropping patterns were less likely to be cultivating rice (27% versus 41% among farmers who did not change their cropping patterns, p<0.001) and wheat (27% versus 36% among farmers who did not change their cropping patterns, p = 0.05). Those who changed their cropping patterns were more likely to be cultivating vegetables (26% versus 15% among farmers who did not change their cropping patterns, p = 0.001) and soybean (7% versus 3% among farmers who did not change their cropping patterns, p<0.001).

The most commonly reported reason for continuing to cultivate the same crop was that it was profitable ( Fig 4 ). Not having a specific reason to shift and not having the knowledge to change crops were also commonly reported. Among farmers who changed crops, the most commonly reported reason was weather followed by market price.

Abbreviations: MSP, minimum support price.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.g004

Concerning inputs, 66% (95% CI, 63–68%) of farmers reported no change in fertilizers; 66% (64–69%) reported no change in pesticides; and 59% (56–62%) reported no change in labor ( Table 2 ). Medium and large farmers were more likely to report no change in fertilizer use compared to small/marginal farmers (p = 0.01). Participants were more likely to report a decrease in labor availability (24% [22–26%]) than an increase in availability (17% [15–19%]). In terms of state-wise differences, farmers from Andhra Pradesh (25% [16–37%]), Chhattisgarh (31% [19–46%]), Odisha (22% [16–29%]), and West Bengal (39% [33–46%]) were most likely to report an increase in the use of fertilizers ( S2 Table ). Farmers from Andhra Pradesh (34% [23–46%]), Gujarat (36% [27–45%]), and West Bengal (36% [30–43%]) were most likely to report an increase in the use of pesticides. Farmers were most likely to report a decrease in labor availability in Andhra Pradesh (37% [25–50%]), Assam (35% [21–53%]), Madhya Pradesh (49% [42–57%]), and Odisha (45% [35–56%]). Poor soil quality and too expensive were the top two reasons for reporting a change in fertilizer use ( Fig 5 ). More pests was the number one reason for reporting a change in pesticide use.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.g005

Coping strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic and willingness to adopt sustainable agricultural practices

About 1 in 5 farmers (21% [95% CI, 18–23%]) had a problem in accessing bank credit during the Kharif season, with loan sanction delays identified as the main problem by half of participants ( Table 3 ). Across states, farmers in Madhya Pradesh had the greatest difficulty in accessing bank credit: 56% (48–63%) of farmers reported having a problem in this state ( S3 Table ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.t003

In terms of coping strategies to help mitigate the impact of COVID-19, one-third of participants had a kitchen garden for home consumption–small/marginal farmers were more likely to have kitchen gardens than medium and large farmers (p<0.001)–and 50% reported eating their own production ( Table 3 ). More than 50% of farmers in Assam, Bihar, Odisha, and West Bengal had kitchen gardens ( S3 Table ). Other commonly reported coping strategies included reducing the price of produce (31% [95% CI, 29–34%] of farmers), finding new markets (21% [19–24%]), and storing more of their produce (17% [15–20%]) ( Table 3 ). Small/marginal and medium farmers were more likely to store their produce than larger farmers (p = 0.03).

About half of farmers (52% [95% CI, 49–55%]) reported avoiding the use of chemicals such as fertilizers or pesticides to some extent and 62% (59–65%) were interested in trying these practices, primarily because of government schemes encouraging such approaches or because their peers were practicing it ( Table 3 ). Small/marginal farmers were more likely to report government schemes and peers, whereas large farmers were more likely to report high input costs (all p<0.001). In four states–Assam (74% [59–85%]), Chhattisgarh (67% [55–78%]), Madhya Pradesh (76% [69–82%]), and Tamil Nadu (84% [75–90%]), the vast majority of farmers reported avoiding the use of chemicals such as fertilizers or pesticides to some extent ( S3 Table ). The lowest rates of interest in agroecology practices were in Karnataka (21% [15–27%] expressing an interest) and Gujarat (19% [14–26%] expressing an interest). Government schemes were most frequently cited as a reason in Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal. COVID-19-related reasons were most frequently cited in Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, and Tamil Nadu, and rarely reported in other states.

COVID-19 symptoms and impact on work

With regards to COVID-19 symptoms in the past month, 8% (95% CI, 6–9%) of farmers had a cough, 12% (9–15%) had a fever, 5% (4–7%) had shortness of breath, and 18% (15–21%) had any one of these three symptoms ( Table 4 ). Among those who had COVID-19 symptoms, 22% (14–32%) said it impacted their ability to work for several days in the past month; 10% (6–17%) said it impacted their ability to work for more than half the days in the past month; and 5% (1–18%) said it impacted their ability to work nearly every day in the past month. Landless and small/marginal farmers were most likely to report COVID-19 symptoms had an impact on their work (p = 0.03).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.t004

Contrary to our hypothesis, we did not find an association between COVID-19 symptoms and changes in crop cultivation patterns or interest in trying agroecological practices. Among those with COVID-19 symptoms, 13% reported changing the type of crop they are cultivating compared to 16% among those without symptoms (p = 0.20). Among those with COVID-19 symptoms, 68% reported an interest in trying agroecological practices compared to 61% among those without symptoms (p = 0.17). Results were similarly non-significant for COVID-19 symptoms affecting their work: symptoms versus no symptoms, 14% versus 13%, respectively (p = 0.91), for changing the type of crop they are cultivating, and 63% versus 70%, respectively (p = 0.49), for interest in trying agroecological practices.

Food security and diet quality among agricultural laborers during the COVID-19 pandemic

Among agricultural laborers, 43% (95% CI, 35–51%) were not able to find work in the current Kharif season. Among those who were able to find work, it was mostly as agricultural laborers (82% [72–80%]), though 5% (3–8%) had work through the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005 (MGNREGA) ( Table 5 ). About one-third reported a decrease in the number of days employed (34% [25–44%]) and 17% (11–25%) a decrease in wage rate. In terms of support received in the past 3 months, 75% (67–81%) had received rations. One in five had not received any support during this period.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.t005

A total of 44% (95% CI, 7–52%) of agricultural laborers reported having a kitchen garden for home consumption ( Table 5 ). In terms of food insecurity, 43% (36–51%) were worried about food in the past month and 21% (16–28%) ate less than usual. More severe forms of food insecurity–skipping a meal in the past month and going without eating for a whole day in the past month–were less common. Diet quality was very poor: the weighted mean dietary diversity score was 1.28 (out of a maximum of 8) and 94% (91–97%) of participants had low dietary diversity. The most commonly consumed food groups were grains (59% [50–67%] consuming daily), vegetables (24% [19–31%] consuming daily), potatoes (18% [14–23%] consuming daily), dairy (15% [9–25%] consuming daily), and pulses (14% [10–18%] consuming daily). All other food groups were consumed by <10% of the sample daily (fruit, nuts, eggs, fish, poultry, and meat).

Despite disruptions to agri-supply chains and labor mobility due to the pandemic [ 12 ], and major new policy initiatives to support development of the agriculture sector [ 14 ], we found that most farmers in a nationally representative sample did not report a change in either their cropping pattern or input use between 2019 and 2020. Among the 16% of farmers who did report cultivating a different crop in 2020 as compared to 2019, many had transitioned from growing rice to growing higher-value, nutrient-dense crops (vegetables), citing weather and the market price as underlying reasons. It was promising to find that 62% of farmers were interested in trying more sustainable farming practices. Given the recent emphasis on natural farming by the highest levels of government–including the Prime Minister of India [ 8 , 22 ]–this willingness among farmers to try sustainable farming practices is especially encouraging for achieving the Sustainable Development Goal 2 target, “to ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices” [ 23 ].

Lack of knowledge was the most frequently reported barrier to shifting cropping patterns. Farmers have consistently reported lack of knowledge and information as a key barrier to diversification towards high-value crops [ 24 ]. Access to knowledge and information is also an important factor in determining adaptation behaviors of farmers in response to climate-related risks [ 25 ]. Non-farm level factors such as access to inputs, credit, local markets, and road networks are also significantly related to crop choice and farm-level diversification [ 24 , 26 – 28 ]. Thus, external support, particularly in the form of farmer training and extension services, is necessary to enable farmers to make changes to their crop cultivation patterns.

This was among the first studies to evaluate the spread of COVID-19 to rural agricultural communities in India and the impact of infection on farmers’ productivity. About one-fifth (18%) of farmers reported COVID-19 symptoms in the past month (cough, fever, or shortness of breath) and among those with symptoms, 37% reported it affected their ability to work. This is likely to be an underestimate of the impact of the first wave on farmers’ productivity given that the survey asked farmers to recall symptoms in the past month, which would have referred to November-December 2020, after the first wave peaked in mid-September 2020. The second wave, which started in March 2021, was much more severe, and continued into the Kharif season of 2021. Continued monitoring of the impact of the spread of COVID-19 in rural communities is required, particularly considering the average age of farmers in India is 50 years and 18% of farmers are over 61 years old [ 29 ]–with age being the biggest single risk factor for COVID-19 morbidity and mortality.

Half of farmers in this national sample reported avoiding the use of chemicals such as fertilizers or pesticides to some extent during the Kharif season following the initial lockdown. This was surprising given that 90% of irrigated land and 63% of unirrigated land is treated with synthetic fertilizer in India and approximately 40% of agricultural land is treated with synthetic pesticides according to a national census of farmers conducted in 2016–2017, before the pandemic [ 6 ]. The lockdown affected farmers’ ability to access and afford inputs including fertilizer and pesticides [ 12 ], and this may explain why a large proportion of farmers in this sample reported avoiding their use to some extent. Moreover, this may reflect the avoidance of fertilizers and pesticides on plots used for home consumption rather than commercial plots–our survey did not differentiate between the two when asking this question. Given that only 16–17% of farmers reported a decrease in fertilizers and pesticides during the COVID-19 pandemic, further exploration of trends in the use of inputs on agricultural land–both commercial and non-commercial–is warranted.

Another key finding of this survey is the substantial interest in agroecological practices among farmers. More than half (62%) of farmers reported that they were interested in trying more sustainable farming practices such as reducing their use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, and the proportion was similar across farm sizes. However, the underlying drivers reported differed across farm sizes with small/marginal farmers more likely to report government schemes and the fact that their peers are practicing it, whereas large farmers were more likely to report high input costs as the reason. These findings can inform programmatic approaches to increasing adoption of these practices across India. Of note, there was variability in the proportion of farmers expressing an interest in agroecological practices across states with Gujarat and Karnataka having the lowest proportions. In contrast, in six states, more than 80% of farmers reported that they were interested in trying these practices, including Assam, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal. Recently, several state governments have taken up policy initiatives to promote sustainable agriculture in India and the central government is providing fiscal and policy support for these initiatives [ 8 ]. For example, Odisha introduced a state organic farming policy in 2018 and has undertaken various initiatives such as an organic millet mission to link farmers to the public distribution system [ 30 ].

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, uptake of sustainable farming practices in India was low; less than 2% of all cultivated land was under organic farming [ 7 , 8 ]. A recent systematic review identified several factors influencing uptake of these practices by farmers [ 31 ]. For example, older farmers who typically have lower education levels than younger farmers are less likely to adopt sustainable farming practices [ 31 ]. Considering the average age of Indian farmers is 50.5 years according to the latest Input Survey (2016–17) [ 6 ], this may partially explain low uptake of sustainable farming practices in India. In addition, institutional factors, particularly visits from agriculture extension services, participation in training programs, and organizational membership are important determinants of uptake of sustainable farming practices [ 31 ]. We recently confirmed this in Andhra Pradesh, where meeting with government or non-governmental organization (NGO) extension agents was significantly positively associated with practicing zero-budget natural farming [ 32 ]. Farmers’ perceptions as relate to sustainable farming can also influence adoption. Farmers who perceive that sustainable farming is beneficial for environmental and human health or that it is more profitable because it reduces cultivation costs, are more likely to adopt this alternative approach [ 31 ]. Unfortunately, however, access to extension agents in India, particularly for women, sharply declined during the pandemic and farmers increasingly relied on social networks for information [ 33 ]. The lack of access to extension agents may hinder adoption of sustainable farming practices even if farmers express an interest in trying them.

This study also uncovered the most common coping strategies to manage their produce implemented by farmers during the first wave: (1) eating their own production (50%), (2) reducing the price of their agricultural products (31%), (3) finding new markets (21%), and (4) storing more (17%). A previous survey conducted in four states (Assam, Andhra Pradesh, Jharkhand, and Karnataka) in May 2020–approximately 8–9 months before our survey–found that 52% coped by finding new markets, 25% by reducing their price, 18% by consuming their own production, and just 5% by storing more [ 34 ]. The discrepancy between studies could suggest that in a nationally representative sample, farmers have less access to new markets but more access to storage facilities than that previous sample of World Vegetable Center program participants [ 34 ].

Among agricultural laborers, 43% were not able to find work during the Kharif season following the initial lockdown and about one-third reported a decrease in the number of days employed. The loss of wage income as a result of the pandemic was also reported in a previous survey of farmers across 12 states that found from June to July/August 2020, 38% of agricultural households no longer earned an income from wages [ 35 ]. Together, these findings are especially worrying because an estimated one-third of agricultural household income comes from wages in India [ 36 ].

Related to this, we also evaluated food insecurity and dietary diversity in agricultural laborers. We found a high proportion were worried about food in the past month (43%), and a notable proportion ate less than usual (21%), skipped a meal (15%), and went without eating for a whole day (6%). These proportions are only slightly lower than reported in a survey across 12 states conducted in May 2020 that found 52% of agricultural laborers worried about food in the past month, 18% skipped a meal, and 7% went without eating for a whole day [ 12 ]. This suggests that food insecurity remains a critical issue. It is promising that 75% of agricultural laborers reported receiving food rations and 44% had a kitchen garden as these may protect them from more severe food insecurity [ 15 ]. This finding is consistent with a previous study of smallholder farmers in two states (Haryana and Odisha), which found that a well-functioning Public Distribution System (PDS) for food rations and homestead gardening protected households from worsening food insecurity during the pandemic [ 37 ]. A survey of rural areas across nine states similarly found that receipt of food rations was high during the initial lockdown period: 52% of households had received free food rations multiple times [ 38 ]. Interestingly, that survey also found the same percent of respondents did not have a ration for the day of the survey (6%) [ 38 ]. Finally, a large-scale survey across 15 states also found that PDS had met the grain needs for the vast majority of households, but distribution of nutrient-dense foods such as pulses lagged behind [ 39 ].

Nonetheless, diet quality was poor–the diets of agricultural laborers in our sample largely consisted of grains, only one-fourth consumed vegetables daily, and less than one-fifth consumed high-protein foods such as pulses and eggs daily. Thus, while these agricultural laborers may have staved off hunger to some extent, they did not have nutritional security. The importance of nutritional security has been recognized in food security studies for over two decades. In fact as Hwalla et. al (2016) propose, there can be no food security without nutritional security and vice versa [ 40 ]. Our findings are similar to the existing literature which shows that households that are food insecure sacrifice the quality of food and food variety “in favor of food quantity, in order to avoid a state of absolute hunger” [ 40 ]. Moreover, a balanced diet plays a key role in building immunity against diseases such as COVID-19 [ 41 ]. Much more work is needed to improve diet quality for these vulnerable groups in India.

This study is not without limitations. The overall response rate was high (89%), however, response rates were differential by state with lower response rates in Haryana, Punjab, and NCR Delhi due to widespread farmer protests in these states at that time. Given that Haryana and Punjab are major agricultural states in India–they are often referred to as the “bread basket” of India–the lack of representation from these states is a major limitation of this study. Moreover, the average farm size in this sample was much larger than that reported in the latest Agriculture Census for India, conducted in 2015–2016, of 1.08 ha [ 29 ]. This study was also cross-sectional, conducted after the first wave of COVID-19 in 2020, which was less severe than the second wave in 2021. Nonetheless, as it is to the best of our knowledge the only nationally representative survey of farmers to be conducted during the pandemic, the findings are valuable for understanding farmers’ response to prepare for such disruptions in the future. Finally, a phone interview relying on self-report may result in biased responses. For example, farmers may over-report practicing sustainable farming practices because it is perceived of as the socially desirable response.

Indian agriculture and its farmers have proven to be resilient during the COVID-19 pandemic. While the Indian economy declined in the first quarter of 2020 by 15%, agriculture remained the only sector to grow–by 3.4% [ 42 ]–largely due to a good harvest with favorable monsoons and the exemption of agricultural activities during the lockdown. However, the sector is not without major challenges. Diet quality remains poor, soils are degraded, groundwater levels continue to drop, and greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase [ 43 ].

With these growing concerns, India must look at a paradigm shift in producing and consuming food. This study found that despite the severe agri-supply chain constraints stemming from the pandemic, farmers did not find it feasible or were not motivated to change their cropping patterns or input-intensive practices, though about half of farmers reported already trying to avoid the use of chemicals to some extent. The policy structure in India continues to favor intensification of a limited number of staple crops–especially rice and wheat. An encouraging finding was the substantial interest in sustainable agricultural practices among farmers, which, if scaled, have the potential to improve farmers’ livelihood, reduce environmental externalities, and increase resilience.

Materials and methods

Sampling strategy.

The sampling frame used for this survey was a sub-set of a nationally representative survey–the Indian Residential Energy Survey (IRES)–conducted by the Council on Energy, Environment and Water between November 2019 and March 2020 [ 44 ]. The original IRES study was conducted to describe the state of energy access and energy-use patterns across Indian households.

IRES surveyed 14,850 households across 152 districts in the 21 most-populous states of India, which account for 97% of the Indian population. The study used stratified multi-stage probability sampling. The primary sampling units (PSU) were villages in rural areas and wards in urban areas, according to the 2011 Census. Within each state, a select number of districts (d) were sampled randomly from d/2 number of strata. Within each of the sampled districts, two basic strata were formed: (i) rural strata comprised of all rural areas of the district and (ii) urban strata comprised of all urban areas of the district. In each district, a total of 12 PSUs were sampled from the urban and rural sampling frames, proportional to the urban and rural population in the district. From each PSU, eight households were randomly surveyed. An equal number of households were sampled from each of the sampled districts.

The IRES survey collected details on the primary source of income for the household. Those reporting agriculture and agricultural labor were contacted for this follow-up survey. There are primarily two cropping seasons in India: Kharif, which runs from May to mid-October, and Rabi, which runs from mid-October to mid-April. Our survey focused on the Kharif season. Participants who matched the IRES database and cultivated land or worked as agricultural laborers in the 2020–2021 Kharif season were included. Those who owned land, but leased it out to someone else during the 2020–2021 Kharif season were excluded.

Data collection

Surveys were conducted via phone interview between 1 December 2020 and 10 January 2021 using SurveyToGo (Dooblo Ltd, Kefar Sava, Israel). The same survey agency that conducted the original IRES survey was contracted to collect the data (Market Xcel Data Matrix Pvt Ltd, New Delhi, India). The survey took, on average, about 20 minutes to complete.

The survey is provided in the Supporting Information ( S1 Text ). Briefly, the survey had four sections. The first section included questions on landholding amount, amount of land cultivated in the current and last Kharif season, reason for change in amount of land cultivated (if applicable), what crops were cultivated in the current and last Kharif season, reason for change in type of crop cultivated and whether the participant thought it was a permanent change (if applicable), reason for sticking with the same type of crop (if applicable), whether there was a change in fertilizer or pesticide use between the current and last Kharif season, reason for change in fertilizer or pesticide use (if applicable), whether there was a change in labor availability between the current and last Kharif season, whether the participant had a kitchen garden for home consumption, what is grown in the kitchen garden (if applicable), and problems accessing bank credit. The second section included questions on coping strategies, agroecological practices, interest in trying agroecological practices, and reason for interest (if applicable). The third section included questions for agricultural laborers on receipt of support, finding work, changes in number of days of work and wage rate between the current and last Kharif season, food insecurity, and dietary intake. The fourth section included questions on COVID-19 symptoms and whether the symptoms had affected the participant’s ability to work.

Questions on agricultural practices were adapted from Government of India surveys [ 45 , 46 ]. Land values were reported in local units and converted into hectares ( S4 Table ). Four farm size categories were defined according to land ownership as landless (0 ha), small/marginal farms (0.01–2.00 ha), medium farms (2.01–4.00 ha), and large farms (>4.00 ha) [ 29 ]. The questions on practice and interest in agroecological practices was framed as: ‘Do you follow any practices in agriculture where you avoid using chemicals such as fertilizers or pesticides, like organic farming?’

Food security was assessed using three questions from the Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) [ 47 , 48 ]: in the past month, was there a time when you or others in your household (1) worried you would run out of food, (2) skipped a meal, or (3) went without eating for a whole day. Only three of the eight FIES questions were asked based on previous experiences administering these questions to farmers in India [ 12 ] that suggested they are very sensitive questions and cause participant discomfort. Questions on food consumption were adapted from the FAO’s Minimum Dietary Diversity for Women (MDD) [ 49 ]. Eight of the ten MDD food groups were included: (1) starchy staples (rice, wheat, and potatoes), (2) pulses, (3) nuts, (4) vegetables, (5) fruits, (6) dairy, (7) eggs, and (8) fleshy foods (meat, poultry, and fish). Those who consumed a food group every day in the past week were assigned a value of “1” and those who did not were assigned a value of “0.” Values were then summed across the eight food groups such that the dietary diversity score ranged from 0 to 8 with 8 representing maximum dietary diversity. Low dietary diversity was defined as a dietary diversity score less than 4.

Household demographic data were from the baseline IRES survey and included rural versus urban residence; age and gender of the participant; educational attainment of the primary income earner of the household; caste; household size; and whether or not they had a BPL or Antyodaya ration card.

This study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Centre for Media Studies (Protocol #: IRB00006230). Verbal informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Statistical analysis

All analyses were conducted using Stata Statistical Software, Release 16.1 (StataCorp LLC, College Station, Texas, USA). Less than 5% of data were missing for all variables ( S5 Table ). State-wise analyses excluded states with sample sizes <100, including Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Kerala, Delhi, Punjab, and Uttarakhand ( S1 Table ). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize demographic characteristics, agricultural practices, food insecurity, dietary diversity, and COVID-19 symptoms, overall and by farm size and state. Values were reported as a weighted percent (95% CI). The weighted percents were calculated as weighted means of indicator variables (e.g., proportions) using Stata’s estimation commands for survey data (e.g., svy ). The 95% CIs were logit-transformed CIs derived from the standard errors of those means. Details of the IRES sampling weight derivation are described elsewhere [ 44 ]. Briefly, a sampling weight was derived for each participating household. The sampling weight equals the number of households in the population that the household represents, estimated as the reciprocal of the probability of selecting that household for the IRES sample. The IRES sampling weights were then adjusted for non-response to the COVID-19 survey using inverse propensity scores derived from a binary logistic regression model based on background characteristics of the participants [ 50 ]. We tested for differences in characteristics according to farm size using Pearson’s chi-squared tests, which are corrected for the survey design [ 51 , 52 ]. A two-sided p<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Supporting information

S1 table. state-wise sample sizes..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.s001

S2 Table. State-wise agricultural practices during the Kharif season in 2020 and 2019 among land-owning farmers in India.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.s002

S3 Table. State-wise coping strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic and interest in agroecology among land-owning farmers in India.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.s003

S4 Table. Land conversion factors from hextobinary.com (accessed 17 February and 11 May 2021).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.s004

S5 Table. Summary of missing data.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.s005

S1 Text. Survey.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.s006

Acknowledgments

We would like to sincerely thank the many farmers and agricultural laborers who responded to our survey. We would also like to express our thanks to the enumerators, without whom this study would not have been possible.

1. Our World in Data. Daily new confirmed COVID-19 deaths per million people Oxford: University of Oxford; 2022 [cited 2022 May 17]. Available from: https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?facet=none&Metric=Confirmed+deaths&Interval=7-day+rolling+average&Relative+to+Population=true&Color+by+test+positivity=false&country=~OWID_WRL .
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar
4. World Bank. World Development Report 2022: Finance for an Equitable Recovery. Washington DC: The World Bank; 2022.
5. World Bank. Employment in agriculture (% of total employment) (modeled ILO estimate) Washington, DC: World Bank; 2019 [cited 2021 June 16]. Available from: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.AGR.EMPL.ZS .
6. Agriculture Census Division. All India Report on Input Survey 2016–17. New Delhi: Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, 2021.
7. Gupta N, Pradhan S, Jain A, Patel N. Sustainable Agriculture in India 2021: What We Know and How to Scale Up. New Delhi: Council on Energy, Environment and Water, 2021.
8. NITI Aayog. Natural farming New Delhi: NITI Aayog,; 2021 [cited 2022 January 20]. Available from: https://naturalfarming.niti.gov.in/ .
11. Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation. India—Situation Assessment Survey of Agricultural Households, January—December 2013, NSS 70th Round New Delhi: Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation,; 2019 [cited 2021 February 8]. Available from: http://microdata.gov.in/nada43/index.php/catalog/133 .
13. USDA. India—Organic Industry Market Report—2021. New Delhi,: United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, 2021 Contract No.: IN2021-0095.
14. Ministry of Finance. Finance Minister announces measures to strengthen Agriculture Infrastructure Logistics, Capacity Building, Governance and Administrative Reforms for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Processing Sectors New Delhi: Press Information Bureau; 2020 [cited 2022 January 20]. Available from: https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1624153 .
17. Mohanan M, Malani A, Krishnan K, Acharya A. Prevalence of COVID-19 in rural versus urban areas in a low-income country: findings from a State-Wide study in Karnataka, India. University of Chicago, Becker Friedman Institute for Economics Working Paper. 2021;(2021–92).
18. Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry (FICCI). Labour in Indian Agriculture: A Growing Challenge. New Delhi: FICCI, 2015.
22. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, editor Prime Minister’s Address (Virtual). National Conclave on Natural Farming; 2021 December 16; Anand, Gujarat, India.
23. United Nations. Goal 2: Zero Hunger. Goal 2 Targets. New York: United Nations,; 2022 [cited 2022 January 23]. Available from: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/hunger/ .
24. Haque TB M; Sinha G; Kalra P; Thomas S;. Constraints and Potentials of Diversified Agricultural Development in Eastern India. New Delhi: Council for Social Development, 2010.
25. Bahinipati CS, Patnaik U. What Motivates Farm Level Adaptation in India? A Systematic Review. In: Haque E, editor. Climate change and community resilience Insights from South Asia: Springer; 2021.
29. Department of Agriculture C, and Farmers Welfare;. All India Report on Agriculture Census 2015–16. New Delhi: Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India, 2020.
36. NABARD. NABARD All India Rural Financial Inclusion Survey 2016–17. Mumbai: National Bank for Agriculture & Rural Development (NABARD), 2018.
38. Rapid Community Response to COVID-19 (RCRC). Resilient Communities. RCRC Centre for Monitoring Rural India during COVID-19 Times. RCRC Hosehold Survey. May 2020. New Delhi: RCRC, 2020.
39. Dalberg. Efficacy of government entitlements for low income families during Covid 19. Mumbai: Dalberg, 2020.
42. Ministry of Finance. Indian Agriculture contributes to green shoots of the Indian Economy with a Growth Rate of 3.4 Per Cent Despite COVID-19 Pandemic New Delhi: Press Information Bureau; 2021 [cited 2022 January 24]. Available from: https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1693205 .
44. Agrawal SM, Sunil Jain, Abhishek Ganesan, Karthik Urpelainen, Johannes India Residential Energy Survey (IRES) 2020. Design and data quality. New Delhi Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW), 2020.
45. Ministry of Agriculture GoI. Agriculture Census 2015–16: Manual of Schedules and Instructions for Data Collection. New Delhi, India: Government of India, 2015.
46. Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation. National Sample Survey (NSS), 70th round. New Delhi: Government of India; 2013.
47. Ballard TJ, Kepple AW, Cafiero C. The food insecurity experience scale: development of a global standard for monitoring hunger worldwide. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization 2013.
49. FAO. Minimum dietary diversity for women: a guide for measurement. Rome: FAO, 2016.
50. Potter F, Grau E, Williams S, Diaz-Tena N, Carlson BL, editors. An application of propensity modeling: Comparing unweighted and weighted logistic regression models for nonresponse adjustments. Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section American Statistical Association; 2006.

Entertainment
Life & Style

To enjoy additional benefits

CONNECT WITH US

Long COVID impact study missing in the country: experts

Global studies have shown that those with long covid could be 25-30% of those infected with covid-19.

Updated - September 11, 2024 01:32 pm IST - HYDERABAD

File photograph used for representational purposes only | Photo Credit: REUTERS

COVID-19 is soon becoming a nightmare no one wants to revisit. But when rest of the world has been reporting about the impact of Long COVID on the populations leading to long-term health effects, few seem to be concerned about its impact here in India.

Serious research is underway in several countries, including the United States, United Kingdom, Japan, China and others, on the effects of Long COVID on the brain, heart, sensory organs and other parts of the body being documented.

But, there does not seem to much headway in that direction in the country either by the government research agencies or hospitals (private too) here. As a result, no one knows what is happening within our population with regard to Long COVID.

“Once any person is infected with COVID, the antibodies will remain forever in the body though we may not know whether this is because of fresh or old infections. We definitely need to test patients for Long COVID. The government has all the data of patients admitted in hospitals during the pandemic — demographics and infection wise across the country,” points out former director of Indian Institute of Public Health-.Hyderabad G.V.S. Murthy.

Global studies have shown that those with Long COVID could be 25-30% of those infected and are suffering from “weakness or tiredness, sleepy towards late afternoon, depression, mental health and muscle weakness”. Chronic cough which is not seen in X-Rays and MRIs have also been reported, he says.

“The National Centre for Disease Control (NCDC) or the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), should have done follow-up studies. But, there appears to be no interest from the scientific or the professional angle,” he points out. Even the adverse reactions following vaccine usage are shrouded in mystery despite a registry being maintained, adds Dr. Murthy.

“The number of heart attacks have gone up in the United State and clinicians there are attributing it to Long COVID. Hospitals here have the data of those infected. A systematic follow-up study is necessary as we are likely to know more about other health complications,” says P. Reddana, professor at the University of Hyderabad’s School of Life Sciences.

Former CSIR-Centre for Cellular & Molecular Biology (CCMB) director and currently director of the Tata Institute for Genetics & Society, Rakesh Mishra says: “Long COVID is an issue. Unfortunately, I don’t think there is anything major or systematic happening here. There was also some follow up of vaccines with some parts of the study submitted, but a larger and sustained study of this kind is desirable.”

Dr. Mishra says such studies are crucial because Indians are “immunologically different” due to genetic or environmental factors and the population response to the virus and vaccines has to be monitored. “It is up to the regulatory authorities and clinicians to take up the initiative since they may have the data,” avers the top scientist.

A silver lining is that a long term study involving more than 10,000 individuals from various CSIR labs in the country has started which follows up a variety of clinical and biochemical health parameters. “I hope this study will continue to be supported for a prolonged period as it will be valuable for future of healthcare system in the country,” he adds.

Published - September 10, 2024 05:50 pm IST

Top News Today

Access 10 free stories every month
Save stories to read later
Access to comment on every story
Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products

Terms & conditions | Institutional Subscriber

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Effects of COVID-19 lockdown phases in India: an atmospheric perspective

Pramod soni.

Department of Civil Engineering, MNNIT Allahabad, Prayagraj, India

Associated Data

The data that support the findings of this study are available freely in public domain.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus. It was first identified in December 2019 in Wuhan, Hubei, China, and has resulted in an ongoing pandemic. As of 5 July 2020, more than 11.1 million cases have been reported across 188 countries and territories, resulting in more than 528,000 deaths. More than 6.03 million people have recovered. The entire world population currently faces enormous challenges (i.e., social, environmental, health, and economic) due to the impact of COVID-19. In this regard, the affected countries are now trying to slow down the virus’s transmission through social-distancing, lockdowns, increasing the number of tests and treatment facilities. There have been four lockdowns (25 March 2020–31 May 2020), and two unlock periods (1 June–31 July 2020) in India. Aerosol Optical Depth (AOD) has been analyzed using MODIS satellite data during various phases of lockdowns over India. With the implementation of lockdown steps, AOD values dropped significantly over various regions. A significant reduction in AOD over the North-Central regions (up to −50%) compared to the regions in the South or Northeast India. The AOD over these regions was significantly affected by the lock/unlock phases. It was also observed that there was a considerable buildup of AOD during the pre-lockdown period in the year 2020 as compared to the past two years.

Introduction

The first case of novel coronavirus (COVID-19) was reported in the Wuhan district of China in December 2019 (Gautam and Hens 2020 ). The virus transmitted rapidly and affected several people within a month (WHO 2020 ). The first person reported in India was from the State of Kerala in late January 2020 (Gautam 2020b ), and according to his travel history, he had returned from China. Since then, there has been a significant rise in the number of COVID-19 patients in India’s various states. As of 5 July 2020, a total of 19,289 deaths have been reported with 6,74,313 infected persons over entire India (https://www.ndtv.com//:5 July 2020). Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, and Delhi have nearly 50% of all India cases, whereas northeast states have the least number of cases. Considering the seriousness of the disease, initially, a 21-day nationwide lockdown (25 March 2020 to 14 April 2020: LD1.0) was announced by the prime minister of India, “Shri. Narendra Modi” to control the transmission of COVID-19 and due to which many industries, academic institutes, markets, as well as public gatherings were shut down. After the first lockdown (LD 1.0), there have been three more lowdown phases in succession (LD2.0: 15 April to 3 May 2020, LD3.0: 4 May to 17 May 2020, LD4.0: 18 May to 31 May 2020). After that, to restart the Indian economy, two unlock phases (UL) have also been announced (UL1.0: 1 June 2020 to 30 June 2020, and UL1.0: 1 July 2020 to 31 July 2020).

The direct outcomes of the various lockdown phases were that the mortality rate of COVID-19 and its cases were significantly controlled. However, there have been various indirect effects of these phases as such lockdowns on the mass level have not been implemented in the world for a long time. Apart from medical research, various scientists around the world have also focused on finding the environmental effects of COVID-19 lockdowns (Kanniah et al. 2020 ; Menut et al. 2020 ; Suresh et al. 2020 ; Mitra et al. 2020 ; Liu et al. 2020a , b ; Nakada and Urban 2020 ; Baldasano 2020 ). Ghosh and Ghosh ( 2020 ) reviewed 15 empirical research articles all around the world and inferred that all the studies had reported a trend of decrease in the level of concentrations of PM10, PM2.5, CO, NO, NO2, NH3, NOx, SO2 during the lockdown period. Srivastava ( 2020 ) also reviewed various studies focusing on the impact of weather on the spread and severity of COVID-19. They also found that air quality has immensely improved due to lockdown.

Indian scientists have also explored environmental and atmospheric changes incurred to COVID-19 lockdowns. Gautam ( 2020a ) analyzed NO 2 data, which were collected from the satellite (Sentinel – 5P), and found a significant reduction in its levels for the Asian and European countries due to COVID-19 lockdowns. Gautam ( 2020b ) used secondary results from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and found a significant reduction (50%) in the air quality of the Indian region. Lokhandwala and Gautam ( 2020 ) also found an improvement of air quality and environment during pre- and post-lockdown of this pandemic situation. Gupta et al. ( 2020 ) analyzed various harmful pollutants present in the environment and observed that over India temperature has been reduced to near about 15 degree Celsius, there is also a reduction in humidity up to 40%, particulate matter (PM2.5) reaches near about normal, i.e., 40 g/m 3 , and carbon monoxide levels have also been reduced to 10 ppm. Mahato et al. ( 2020 ) also found 40–50% improvement in air quality over Delhi. Jain and Sharma ( 2020 ) found around 30–80% reduction in pollutant concentrations in all the megacities in India. Kumari and Toshniwal ( 2020 ) found a substantial reduction in the concentration of PM10, PM2.5, NO2, and SO2 in two major cities (Delhi and Mumbai) of India post-lockdown phase. Bera et al. ( 2020 ) did a similar analysis with PM2.5 for another major city of India (Kolkata). They found a positive correlation between air pollution in Kolkata and the lethality related to COVID-19. Using Aerosol Optical Depth (AOD) from MODIS, Ranjan et al. ( 2020 ) found that the AOD level over the Indian Territory is greatly reduced ( 45%) during the lockdown periods as compared to the long-term mean AOD level (2000–2019). Aman et al. ( 2020 ) analyzed the impact of lockdown on water and air quality using remote sensing data and found a significant reduction in the average suspended particulate matter over Ahmedabad, India.

In India, there have been four lockdown phases, and one unlock phase has passed, and at the time of writing this article (for the first time), the second unlock phase is in progress. All the previous studies have focused on analyzing air quality during pre- and post-lockdown situations, mostly for individual cities. Moreover, these studies have not tried to identify major regions that contribute most to the anthropogenic air pollution in India. Since there has not been a major shutdown of various Industries/activities throughout the country at such a mass level, these lockdown phases can be taken as an opportunity to identify the hot spots (in terms of anthropogenic air pollution) in India. The present study was carried out with the following objectives:

To analyze the impacts of various lockdown phases in India.
To identify anthropogenic pollution hot spots of India.

Study area and data used

According to the World Air Quality Report (WAQR ( 2019 )), 21 of the world’s 30 cities with the worst air pollution are in India, with six in the top ten. Considering the above fact, the present study has been carried out over India. Further, five different regions (covering Delhi, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and northeast states) were analyzed, as shown in Fig. Fig.1. 1 . As of 5 July 2020, Maharashtra, Delhi, and Tamil Nadu have nearly 50% of all India COVID-19 cases.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 10668_2020_1156_Fig1_HTML.jpg

Study area: The regions have been named based on the state lying in it

The analysis has been carried out using the AOD at 550 nm over land regions, obtained from MODIS/Terra level-3 (MOD08_D3) satellite that is publicly available at daily temporal resolution and 1-degree spatial resolution. The MODIS is the most reliable public source of AOD around the globe. Mangla et al. ( 2020 ) compared AOD data for the 2010–2017 (8 years) from multiple satellites (MISR, MODIS, and OMI) and ground-based AOD (AERONET) over Indo-Gangetic Plains (Gandhi College, Jaipur, and Kanpur) region. They found that MODIS, as compared to other sensors, has a high correlation with AERONET.

Methodology

The AOD of the year 2020 over entire India and various regions marked in Fig. Fig.1 1 was analyzed and compared with previous years (2018, 2019) AOD data. For comparison, anomalies of AOD of the year 2020 have been calculated by subtracting it from the AODs of the years 2018 and 2019 at each grid point.

The analysis is carried out for different time intervals, as shown in Table Table1. 1 . The first period, pre-Lockdown, was the period before any lockdown was imposed in India from 1 January 2020 to 24 March 2020. The second period will be called as the lockdown 1.0 (LD1.0) that existed from 25 March 2020 to 14 April 2020. Subsequently, there were three more lockdowns (LD2.0, LD3.0, and LD4.0) between 15 April 2020 and 31 May 2020. After that, the first unlock period (UL1.0) started from 1 June 2020 to 30 June 2020. At present, the second unlock phase (UL2.0) is in progress.

Various lockdown/unlock phases in India due to COVID-19

S. No.	Phase	Start	End
1	Pre-lockdown (PL)	1 January 20	24 March 20
2	Lockdown 1.0 (LD1.0)	25 March 20	14 April 20
3	Lockdown 2.0 (LD2.0)	15 April 20	3 May 20
4	Lockdown 3.0 (LD3.0)	4 May 20	17 May 20
5	Lockdown 4.0 (LD4.0)	18 May 20	31 May 20
6	Unlock 1.0 (UL1.0)	1 June 20	30 June 20
7	Unlock 2.0 (UL2.0)	1 July 20	31 July 20

Entire India

Since, for the year 2020, data were available only up to 30 June 2020, the spatial pattern of AOD (averaged over the last three years) is shown for this period in Fig. Fig.2. 2 . It can be seen that compared to the southern parts of India, there is a substantial buildup of aerosols over the north and the eastern regions. The average AOD for the period of January to June reaches up to 0.9.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 10668_2020_1156_Fig2_HTML.jpg

Spatial pattern of AOD over India from January 2020 to June 2020

Figure Figure3 3 shows the anomaly for the PL period. There is a considerable increase in AOD during this period in the year 2020 compared to 2018 and 2019 over entire India. Since there was no imposition of any restriction, due to the rapid growth of Industrial activities, a considerable increase in AOD during this period was observed. On average, there was about 6.24% and 11.87% increase in AOD compared to the corresponding periods of the years 2018 and 2019, respectively.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 10668_2020_1156_Fig3_HTML.jpg

Spatial pattern of AOD anomaly for the pre-lockdown period

The AOD anomalies from the years 2018 and 2019 after the PL phase are shown in Fig. Fig.4. 4 . During the first phase (LD1.0) only, there is a considerable reduction of AOD over India. This reduction is more prominent over Indo-Gangetic Plains (IGP) as compared to other places.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 10668_2020_1156_Fig4_HTML.jpg

Spatial pattern of AOD anomaly for different lockdown/unlock phases

An anomaly from the year 2018 shows that in the year 2020, AOD is always lower after the PL period, which shows a significant impact of lockdown phases over entire India. Compared to the year 2018, there is an average reduction of about 18.56% over entire India during the lockdown phases (LD1.0 to LD 4.0), whereas, for the same period, it is only 5.76% from the year 2019. From the anomalies of the year 2019, we can see that, as the lockdown phases end, a relative increase in AOD over the central part of India can be observed as various activities slowly start to take place. However, this change is most prominent for the central part of India.

All India averaged 10-day running mean timeservers of AOD are shown in Fig. Fig.5 5 for all three years. During the PL period, AOD in the year 2020 is much higher than in the past two years. Moreover, just at the beginning of lockdown phases 1.0 and 2.0, there is a considerable decrease in AOD of the year 2020. After the unlock process begins (UL1.0), the AOD of the year 2020 begins to match with the AOD previous year (2018).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 10668_2020_1156_Fig5_HTML.jpg

All India averaged 10-day running mean timeservers of AOD

Regional level analysis

To analyze the effects of lockdown over different regions (as shown in Fig. Fig.1), 1 ), average AOD over these regions was obtained. The anomalies of AOD of the year 2020 were calculated by subtracting it from the AOD of the years 2018 and 2019 over the same region.

The 10-day running means anomalous time series from the year 2018 is shown in Fig. Fig.6 6 for all five regions. From the figure, we can see that over Delhi, Maharashtra and UP, a clear distinction can be seen between the PL period and lockdown phases. Over Delhi and UP region, it is even more evident that before the lockdown began, there was a significant rise in the AOD, which declined after the lockdown phases. However, over the Tamil Nadu and northeast states, this behavior was not observed clearly. Although there is a decrease in AOD for the year 2020, still the effect of lockdown phases is not observed.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 10668_2020_1156_Fig6_HTML.jpg

The 10-day running means anomalous time series from the year 2018

Similar plots for anomaly from the year 2019 are shown in Fig. Fig.7. 7 . Over Delhi and UP regions, just before the lockdown period, there was a rise in AOD, which drops in lockdown phases. The percentage change in the AOD over various periods is shown in Tables Tables2 2 and and3, 3 , respectively. As compared to the year 2018, Delhi had 23.53% more AOD during the PL period. During all the lockdown periods, it reduced to a minimum of −47.97% during the LD3.0 phase. A similar pattern was observed for Uttar Pradesh also. The highest drop in AOD was observed for the Uttar Pradesh region during the LD1.0 phase (−49.67% from 2018 and −33.37% from 2019). However, as shown in Table Table3, 3 , in contrast to the year 2018, during the PL period, AOD in 2020 increased for all the regions compared to the year 2019. However, the significant reduction during the lockdown phase is visible for Delhi, Maharashtra, and northeast.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 10668_2020_1156_Fig7_HTML.jpg

The 10-day running means anomalous time series from the year 2019

% AOD anomaly from year 2018

	PL	LD1.0	LD2.0	LD3.0	LD4.0	UL1.0
Delhi	23.53	−36.49	−21.69	−47.97	−31.80	−36.17
Maharashtra	−1.23	−7.09	−0.75	−27.14	−44.63	−23.57
UP	29.71	−49.67	1.22	−35.79	−36.87	−33.45
Tamil Nadu	−16.56	−39.22	−13.39	−6.53	−17.52	−25.68
Northeast	3.41	−16.86	−12.18	−30.35	1.48	−32.58

% AOD anomaly from year 2019

	PL	LD1.0	LD2.0	LD3.0	LD4.0	UL1.0
Delhi	1.75	−16.40	−10.37	−24.14	6.88	−0.99
Maharashtra	16.54	30.38	−14.34	5.04	−7.71	−1.50
UP	6.52	−33.37	5.61	−13.56	−0.88	3.33
Tamil Nadu	5.25	−10.66	−6.86	−5.01	−7.02	−16.43
Northeast	21.98	−4.02	−8.78	−29.64	7.64	−15.75

Summary and conclusions

The AOD data obtained from the MODIS satellite were analyzed over India for various lockdown phases over different regions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Apart from the analyses over India as a whole, a total of five major regions (Delhi, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and northeast states) were also chosen. The analysis was carried out for six different periods of 2018, 2019, and 2020. The first period was the pre-lockdown period (PL), which was up to 24 March 2020. Four different lockdown periods were then selected (LD 1.0 to LD 4.0), and one UL1.0 period was also selected.

There is a considerable increase in AOD for the PL period in 2020 over India compared to the years 2018 and 2019. On average, there was about 6.24% and 11.87% increase in AOD during this period compared to corresponding periods of the years 2018 and 2019, respectively. During the lockdown phases (LD1.0 to LD 4.0), compared to the year 2018, there is an average reduction of about 18.56% over entire India, whereas, for the same period, there is a reduction of only 5.76% from the year 2019.

Over Delhi, Maharashtra, and Uttar Pradesh, there was a significant rise in the AOD, which declined after the lockdown phases begin. However, over the Tamil Nadu and northeast states, such behavior was not observed clearly. As compared to the year 2018, Delhi had 23.53% more AOD during the PL period. The lowest anomaly −47.97% was observed during the LD3.0 phase for Delhi. Similar patterns were observed for Uttar Pradesh also. Overall, the most significant drop in AOD was observed for the Uttar Pradesh region during the LD1.0 phase (−49.67% from 2018 and −33.37% from 2019). In contrast to the year 2018, during the PL period, AOD in 2020 increased for all the regions compared to the year 2019.

The major conclusions from the study can be enumerated as

There was a considerable buildup of AOD during the pre-lockdown period in the year 2020
As the lockdown phases began, there was a sudden drop in AOD values, especially over the Indo-Gangetic Plains. The drop was as high as -47.97% for Delhi during the LD3.0 phase.
As the unlock phase begins, the drop in AOD was flattened for Delhi and Uttar Pradesh regions.
The industrialized regions in the north are significantly affected by the lock/unlock phases as compared to regions in the south or northeast.

Data availability

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Aman MA, Salman MS, Yunus AP. Covid-19 and its impact on environment: Improved pollution levels during the lockdown period-a case from Ahmedabad, India. Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment. 2020; 20 :100382. doi: 10.1016/j.rsase.2020.100382. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Baldasano JM. Covid-19 lockdown effects on air quality by NO2 in the cities of Barcelona and Madrid (Spain) Science of the Total Environment. 2020; 741 :140353. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140353. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bera B, Bhattacharjee S, Shit PK, Sengupta N, Saha S. Significant impacts of covid-19 lockdown on urban air pollution in Kolkata (India) and amelioration of environmental health. Environment, Development and Sustainability. 2020; 2020 :1–28. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Gautam S. COVID-19: Air pollution remains low as people stay at home. Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health. 2020; 13 (7):853–857. doi: 10.1007/s11869-020-00842-6. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Gautam S. The influence of COVID-19 on air quality in India: A boon or inutile. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 2020; 104 (6):724–726. doi: 10.1007/s00128-020-02877-y. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Gautam S, Hens L. SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in India: what might we expect? Environment, Development and Sustainability. 2020; 22 (5):3867–3869. doi: 10.1007/s10668-020-00739-5. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ghosh S, Ghosh S. Air quality during covid-19 lockdown: Blessing in disguise. Indian Journal of Biochemistry & Biophysics. 2020; 57 :420–430. [ Google Scholar ]
Gupta N, Tomar A, Kumar V. The effect of covid-19 lockdown on the air environment in India. Global Journal of Environmental Science and Management. 2020; 6 :31–40. [ Google Scholar ]
Jain S, Sharma T, et al. Social and travel lockdown impact considering coronavirus disease (covid-19) on air quality in megacities of India: Present benefits, future challenges and way forward. Aerosol and Air Quality Research. 2020; 20 :1222–1236. doi: 10.4209/aaqr.2020.04.0171. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kanniah KD, Zaman NAFK, Kaskaoutis DG, Latif MT. Covid-19’s impact on the atmospheric environment in the Southeast Asia region. Science of the Total Environment. 2020; 736 :139658. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139658. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kumari, P., & Toshniwal, D. (2020). Impact of lockdown measures during COVID-19 on air quality– A case study of India. International Journal of Environmental Health Research . 10.1080/09603123.2020.1778646. [ PubMed ]
Liu, Y., Lin, X., & Qin, S. (2020a). The short-term seasonal analyses between atmospheric environment and covid-19 in epidemic areas of cities in Australia, South Korea, and Italy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.12264 .
Liu, Z., Deng, Z., Ciais, P., Lei, R., Feng, S., Davis, S. J., Wang, Y., Yue, X., Lei, Y., Zhou, H., et al. (2020b). Decreases in global co _ 2 emissions due to covid-19 pandemic. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.13614 .
Lokhandwala S, Gautam P. Indirect impact of covid-19 on environment: A brief study in Indian context. Environmental Research. 2020; 188 :109807. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2020.109807. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Mahato S, Pal S, Ghosh KG. Effect of lockdown amid covid-19 pandemic on air quality of the megacity Delhi, India. Science of the Total Environment. 2020; 730 :139086. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139086. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Mangla R, Indu J, Chakra S. Inter-comparison of multi-satellites and aeronet AOD over Indian region. Atmospheric Research. 2020; 2020 :104950. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosres.2020.104950. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Menut L, Bessagnet B, Siour G, Mailler S, Pennel R, Cholakian A. Impact of lockdown measures to combat covid-19 on air quality over Western Europe. Science of the Total Environment. 2020; 741 :140426. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140426. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Mitra A, Ray Chadhuri T, Mitra A, Pramanick P, Zaman S. Impact of covid-19 related shutdown on atmospheric carbon dioxide level in the city of Kolkata. Parana Journal of Science and Education. 2020; 6 (3):84–92. [ Google Scholar ]
Nakada LYK, Urban RC. Covid-19 pandemic: Impacts on the air quality during the partial lockdown in São Paulo state, Brazil. Science of the Total Environment. 2020; 2020 :139087. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139087. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ranjan AK, Patra A, Gorai A. Effect of lockdown due to sars covid-19 on aerosol optical depth (AOD) over urban and mining regions in India. Science of the Total Environment. 2020; 745 :141024. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141024. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Srivastava A. Covid-19 and air pollution and meteorology-an intricate relationship: A review. Chemosphere. 2020; 263 :128297. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.128297. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Suresh, A., Chauhan, D., Othmani, A., Bhadauria, N., S, A., Jose, J., & Mejjad, N. (2020). Diagnostic comparison of changes in air quality over China before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic. 10.21203/rs.3.rs-30482/v1.
WAQR (2019). World air quality report (2019).
World Health Organization, & World Health Organization (2020). Coronavirus disease (covid-2019) situation reports.

Change Font Size A A
Change Language हिंदी | Hindi
Focus on Story
हिंदी | Hindi
Paralympics Medal Tally
EPL Schedule
Cricket Schedule
Table tennis
Othersports
ICC Rankings
Test Championship
Cricket Matches
Football Matches
All Matches

2023 ODI World Cup In India Generated Economic Impact Of $1.39 Billion: ICC

In the 2023 odi world cup final, australia ended india's unbeaten run in the tournament to win the trophy for a record-extending sixth time..

The 2023 ODI World Cup in India created an "economic impact" of USD 1.39 billion with tourism among the biggest beneficiaries, according to a report released by the International Cricket Council (ICC) on Wednesday. The Economic Impact Assessment conducted by Nielsen for the ICC, claimed that the mega-event held in October-November last year was the biggest ever ODI World Cup. "The ICC Men's Cricket World Cup 2023 has demonstrated the significant economic power of cricket, generating economic benefit of USD 1.39 billion (Rs 11,637 crore) for India," ICC Chief Executive, Geoff Allardice said in a statement.

Australia ended India's unbeaten run in the tournament to win the trophy for a record-extending sixth time.

"The impact of tourism across the host cities amounted to USD 861.4 million of revenue generation, through accommodation, travel, transportation and food and beverage because of a massive influx of domestic and foreign tourists attending the matches," read an ICC statement.

"The secondary and incremental spends within the economy was a key driver, generating USD 515.7 million, which was approximately 37 per cent of the total impact." However, the ICC did not specify whether the massive figure cited in the report is actual revenue.

A record-breaking 1.25 million spectators attended the mega event, of which nearly 75 per cent were attending an ICC 50-over match for the first time ever, the report claimed.

"Nearly 55 per cent of the international respondents had previously visited India regularly, whilst an injection of new visitors thanks to the World Cup saw 19% of international attendees making their first ever visit to the country.

"International travellers visited multiple tourist destinations during their stay which amounted to an economic impact of USD281.2 million and nearly 68 per cent of international attendees said that they would recommend India as a tourist destination to friends and family in the future further enhancing India's global image," read the statement from the governing body.

Over 48,000 full and part time jobs were created by the event through direct involvement in delivering the tournament, as well as other organisations across the hospitality sector, added the report.

"The event created thousands of jobs and showcased India as a premier tourist destination, proving that ICC events not only engage fans passionately but also contribute significantly to the economies of our host nations," Allardice said.

IMAGES

COVID-19: Responding to the Crisis in India
India’s Covid Outbreak Is Now the World’s Fastest-Growing
≫ Impact of Covid-19 on Education System in India Free Essay Sample on
COVID-19 crisis in India on display in these shocking photos
Opinion
COVID-19 & Xavier: Documents

VIDEO

COVID-19: India reports more than 11,000 new cases in last 24 hours

COMMENTS

COVID-19 and Its Impact on the Indian Economy
A major impact of COVID-19 is expected on the Indian economy for fiscal 2020-2021. At the point of writing this article, that is, on 14 April 2020, the lockdown has been extended to 3 May 2020 and in all probabilities is likely to go up to 30 June 2020. ... An Analytical Overview of the State-Wise Impact of COVID-19 in India. Go to citation ...
The Rise and Impact of COVID-19 in India
The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, which originated in the city of Wuhan, China, has quickly spread to various countries, with many cases having been reported worldwide. As of May 8th, 2020, in India, 56,342 positive cases have been reported. India, with a population of more than 1.34 billion—the second largest population in the ...
Situation of India in the COVID-19 Pandemic: India's Initial Pandemic
With India's 1.3 billion population and limited expenditure on public health, and the various predictions of COVID-19 development, the impact of the disease on India's health infrastructure and economy may be difficult to explicate with accurate information, but it may likely cause a dent in the current health and financial system.
Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in India: An analysis of policy and
The first case of COVID-19 in India was reported on 30 January 2020 in the state of Kerala; this was a student who returned from Wuhan and tested positive for COVID-19, following which aggressive contact tracing followed by 14-day home quarantine for suspected cases were enforced . The state remained on high alert.
How India is dealing with COVID-19 pandemic
By May 18th, India investigated ∼1 lakh (0.1million) infected cases from COVID-19, and as of 11th July the cases equalled 8 lakhs. Social distancing and lockdown rules were employed in India, which however had an additional impact on the economy, human living, and environment. Where a negative impact was observed for the economy and human ...
The impact of COVID-19 and the policy response in India
The impact of COVID-19 and the policy response in India. Much has been written about how COVID-19 is affecting people in rich countries but less has been reported on what is happening in poor ...
PDF COVID-19 Impacts and Responses: The Indian Experience
tion, but 1 out of 5 people can become seriously ill. They may experience shortness of breath, chest pain/ pressure, or loss of speech and mo. ement, and should seek medical attention immediately. At present, no COVID-19 vaccine exists, and scientists and medical professionals are still ma.
The Rise and Impact of COVID-19 in India
The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, which originated in the city of Wuhan, China, has quickly spread to various countries, with many cases having been reported worldwide. As of May 8th, 2020, in India, 56,342 positive cases have been reported. India, with a population of more than 1.34 billion-the second largest population in the world ...
Impact of Covid-19 Pandemic on The Indian Economy
conomic impact of the Covid-19 pandemic in India. Even prior to the pandemic, the Indian econ-omy was marked by a slowdown of economic growth. and record increases in unemployment and poverty. Thus, India's capacity to deal with a new cr. sis was weak when the pandemic hit in March 2020. The economic crisis after March 2.
Impact of COVID-19 on India: alternative scenarios for economic and
Abstract. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to major learning about the social and economic losses that an external shock to the system can cause. In this paper, we examine some sustainability issues focusing on three key focal points of sustainable development - economic growth, poverty and inequality in the context of climate change.
Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in India
The economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in India has been largely disruptive. India's growth in the fourth quarter of the fiscal year 2020 went down to 3.1% according to the Ministry of Statistics.The Chief Economic Adviser to the Government of India said that this drop is mainly due to the coronavirus pandemic effect on the Indian economy. Notably, India had also been witnessing a pre ...
COVID-19 Lockdown in India: Impact on the Poor and the Government's
The imposition of a complete lockdown by the Indian government in March 2020 to prevent a rise in COVID-19 infections has had a substantial impact on the country's economy and health. Over the past one year, a large proportion of Indians, mainly the socio-economically marginalised, have found it difficult to find jobs, feed their families and ...
The Impact of COVID-19 on Poverty Estimates in India: A Study Across
We have used two levels of contraction in per capita income or consumption, that is 5% and 10% for assessing the impact of COVID-19 crises on the poverty estimates in India for the year 2021-2022. These scenarios are not arbitrary but are based on our assumption of the net impact of COVID-19 induced crises on the income of the people.
Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in India: An analysis of ...
These data were analysed, with a focus on the impact of policy and technological interventions. Results: The spread of COVID-19 in India was initially characterized by fewer cases and lower case fatality rates compared with numbers in many developed countries, primarily due to a stringent lockdown and a demographic dividend.
Impact of Covid-19 on The Indian Economy
The effect of this pandemic disease is even worse in India. India suffered through the financial crisis in 2008-09 and now in 2020 the impact of COVID-19 seemed much worse. The country will seem to face multiple challenges in various sectors such as health, economy, finances etc.
Coronavirus' impact on India
The COVID-19 pandemic is the defining global health crisis of our time and the greatest global humanitarian challenge the world has faced since World War II. The virus has spread widely, and the number of cases is rising daily as governments work to slow its spread. India has moved quickly, implementing a proactive, nationwide, 21-day lockdown ...
Education during the COVID-19 Pandemic in India
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, India's poor educational records have been exacerbated, with schools being closed since March 2020. As can be seen from Figures 2 and 2A, schools in India have been closed for the largest number of weeks. The map also reveals that schools in India have been closed for 69 weeks - the longest duration that ...
COVID-19 in India: Statewise Analysis and Prediction
The highly infectious coronavirus disease (COVID-19) was first detected in Wuhan, China in December 2019 and subsequently spread to 212 countries and territories around the world, infecting millions of people. In India, a large country of about 1.3 billion people, the disease was first detected on January 30, 2020, in a student returning from ...
India's COVID-19 vaccination drive: key challenges and resolutions
The COVID-19 vaccine drive in India was launched on Jan 16, 2021. From May 1, 2021, all people older than 18 years are eligible in phase 4 of the vaccination drive. By July 20, 2021, 326·4 million people in India (23·4% of the population) had received the first dose of the vaccine, and 85·4 million people (6·1% of the population) had ...
COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on social relationships and health
This essay examines key aspects of social relationships that were disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic. It focuses explicitly on relational mechanisms of health and brings together theory and emerging evidence on the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic to make recommendations for future public health policy and recovery. We first provide an overview of the pandemic in the UK context, outlining the ...
Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on agriculture in India: Cross ...
Author summary Nearly half of the Indian population is employed in agriculture, yet no nationally representative survey has explored the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on farmers. We leveraged a pre-existing nationally representative sample of 20 states/union territories to conduct surveys via phone interview between December 2020 and January 2021 with 3,637 farmers. This period coincided ...
Impact of COVID-19 on healthcare system in India: A systematic review
The first wave. In India, the first case of COVID-19 infection was reported on 27TH January 2020, when a 20 year old female with a travel history of China presented with a sore throat and dry cough in the emergency department of General Hospital, Thrissur, Kerala. 4 Since then, COVID-19 has taken a serious toll in India and worldwide. To prevent the spread of COVID-19 infection, the Government ...
Long COVID impact study missing in the country: experts
COVID-19 is soon becoming a nightmare no one wants to revisit. But when rest of the world has been reporting about the impact of Long COVID on the populations leading to long-term health effects ...
Effects of COVID-19 lockdown phases in India: an atmospheric
Introduction. The first case of novel coronavirus (COVID-19) was reported in the Wuhan district of China in December 2019 (Gautam and Hens 2020).The virus transmitted rapidly and affected several people within a month (WHO 2020).The first person reported in India was from the State of Kerala in late January 2020 (Gautam 2020b), and according to his travel history, he had returned from China.
2023 ODI World Cup In India Generated Economic Impact Of $1.39 Billion
The 2023 ODI World Cup in India created an "economic impact" of USD 1.39 billion with tourism among the biggest beneficiaries, according to a report released by the International Cricket Council ...

PERSPECTIVE article

Current Scenario in India

COVID-19 and Previous Coronavirus Outbreaks

Impact of COVID-19 in India and the Global Economy

Preparations and Preventive Measures in India

Future Perspectives

Data Availability Statement

Author Contributions

Conflict of Interest

Acknowledgments

The impact of COVID-19 and the policy response in India

Save citation to file

Add to My Bibliography

Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in India: An analysis of policy and technological interventions

Conflict of interest statement

Similar articles

Related information

Other Literature Sources

Impact of Covid-19 on The Indian Economy

Table of contents

Cite this Essay

Related Essays

Still can’t find what you need?

Related Essays on Indian Economy

Related Topics

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

Getting ahead of coronavirus: Saving lives and livelihoods in India

Robust measures to stabilize and support households, businesses, and the financial system

Further fiscal-, monetary-, and structural-measure possibilities

Emergence from lockdown, safeguarding both lives and livelihoods

Explore a career with us

Safeguarding our lives and our livelihoods: The imperative of our time

How to restart national economies during the coronavirus crisis

Beyond coronavirus: The path to the next normal

Log in using your username and password

You are here

Data availability statement

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Introduction

Social networks

Social support

Social and interactional norms

Recommendations and conclusions

Recommendation 1: explicitly count the relational cost of public health policies to control the pandemic

Recommendation 2: intelligently balance online and offline ways of relating

Recommendation 3: build stronger and sustainable localised communities

Ethics statements

Read the full text or download the PDF:

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on agriculture in India: Cross-sectional results from a nationally representative survey

Author summary

Introduction

Characteristics of study sample

Change in cropping patterns and input use during the COVID-19 pandemic

Coping strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic and willingness to adopt sustainable agricultural practices

COVID-19 symptoms and impact on work

Food security and diet quality among agricultural laborers during the COVID-19 pandemic

Materials and methods

Data collection

Statistical analysis

Supporting information

S2 Table. State-wise agricultural practices during the Kharif season in 2020 and 2019 among land-owning farmers in India.

S3 Table. State-wise coping strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic and interest in agroecology among land-owning farmers in India.

S4 Table. Land conversion factors from hextobinary.com (accessed 17 February and 11 May 2021).

S5 Table. Summary of missing data.

S1 Text. Survey.

Acknowledgments

Long COVID impact study missing in the country: experts

Related Topics

Top News Today

Effects of COVID-19 lockdown phases in India: an atmospheric perspective

Associated Data

Introduction

Study area and data used

Methodology

Entire India

Regional level analysis

Summary and conclusions

Data availability

2023 ODI World Cup In India Generated Economic Impact Of $1.39 Billion: ICC

IMAGES