Introduction
The onset of COVID-19 was unexpected and as a result, has led to the death of millions of people across the world. Consequently, the Australian government introduced the COVIDSafe mobile application to help control the pandemic. Its success relies on the citizens’ rational decisions in supporting the government towards containing the virus.
Issue, Facts, and Context
Closing of schools, businesses, medical facilities, and borders are a few impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic that have contributed to public health challenges in Australia. The government was not prepared for the pandemic; consequently, the health system cannot effectively control the current situation. The main challenge experienced in the sector is the limited distribution of Personal Protective Equipment (PPEs), medical supplies, and testing kits, critical in managing the pandemic (Hunt, 2020). Similarly, public hospitals lack enough isolation wards and Intensive Care Unit facilities to treat infected individuals.
Consequently, the national government has been forced to introduce a total lockdown to reduce the pandemic’s spread and utilize the limited public health resources. However, this decision has negatively impacted the economy, and the government has opted for the COVIDSafe app meant to speed up the process of locating exposed and infected individuals. This approach’s benefit is that it helps ease restrictions and improve the economy gradually (Hunt, 2020). The only challenge is that the app’s use is voluntary, and the rate of downloading and utilizing it is low. Furthermore, not all Australians have smartphones, and some might adamantly reject the COVIDSafe app. To liberate the economy and the country, the government is exposing its citizens to more risk. It should have considered the mentioned factors before implementing the application’s use.
Economic Model of Individual Decision-Making and The Use of The COVIDSafe App
Citizens are at the center of the contact tracing app and therefore determine its success or failure, and the economic model of individual decision-making can be used to analyze their attitudes towards the software. According to Alvino and Franco (2017), people make decisions that earn the greatest satisfaction, and this concept is equally applied to the economics of decision-making. When humans are given a variety of options to pick from in a scarce environment, they settle on the one that meets individual needs. The economic ideology is based on the assumption that individuals can make sensible choices by comparing the costs and benefits of the presented options (Nguyen & Wait, 2015). A rational human exercises self-control and is not influenced by feelings and, therefore, makes wise individual decisions.
However, behavioral economics contradicts the practicality of the concept and cites that humans cannot make the right choices. This model of individual decision-making applies to the use of the COVIDSafe app by Australians and its effectiveness in contact tracing. Whereas the correct choice would be to download the app voluntarily and utilize it diligently, very few individuals will do that, and this is evident in the current statistics regarding the technology’s application (Alvino & Franco, 2017). The best decision for most individuals, based on the economic model, would be to download the app but still to avoid using it because contact tracing would mean social interactions are limited. For instance, 24 hours after introducing the app, 2 million Australians had downloaded the COVIDSafe mobile software, but months later, the government still has not hit its 40% target, which equals 10 million of the entire Australian population (Hunt, 2020). This is a clear indication that to most citizens, the app denies them the desire to live normally without government restrictions.
Unintended Consequences of the App’s use and Availability
The goal of the COVIDSafe app is to minimize the infection rate within the Australian borders, but there are unforeseen repercussions of the software’s availability that limits its effectiveness. Whereas the technology helps in tracking exposed individuals efficiently, there is the danger of infringing the citizens’ right to information privacy as indicated in the Privacy Amendment Act (1990) (Hunt, 2020). Granting the government full access to people’s phones gives it a chance to collect personal data not associated with controlling the pandemic. Since the Australian law protects its citizens from such violations, some people might challenge the country’s move in courts and as a result, slow down the implementation of the COVIDSafe app.
Furthermore, the fact that the application of COVIDSafe is voluntary implies that there are citizens who will not download or use it. The software is meant to aid in contact tracing, which tracks individuals who have been exposed to the virus and isolates them for testing and treatment (Hunt, 2020). However, the thought of isolation instills fear in most people who will opt not to report through the app whenever they are exposed to the virus. Consequently, the number of infections are will increase because the application is not achieving its purpose.
Consequences of Making the Use of the App Mandatory and the Use of Criminal Sanctions
Whereas the introduction of regulations to be followed while using the COVIDSafe app for contact tracing might be beneficial, making it mandatory, on the other hand, has consequences. Mobile phones carry personal data, and forcing people to download mobile applications will trigger opposition from human rights activists. Countries in the Middle East and Asia such as Kuwait have made it mandatory to download the application and further enacted fines on individuals who will not accept the online contact tracing approach. The country is already in a crisis characterized by panic and forcing citizens to adopt the technological approach might trigger civil unrest.
Becker’s model of crime can be used in predicting the consequences of forcing citizens to download the COVIDSafe app. The theory illustrates that potential offenders are economically rational and agree to deter incentives such as the risk of punishment imposed by the criminal justice system (Garoupa, 2014). Criminals make their decisions after comparing the costs and benefits of committing an offense. Consequently, the majority of the citizens will not download the app because to them it is not a crime that deserves punishment. The solution to this issue is to make installation and use of COVIDSafe mandatory only to identify individuals who have been infected by the virus. In this case, the health risks supersede the right to information privacy, making it acceptable to enact the policy.
Conclusion
The COVID-19 pandemic has negatively impacted the Australian government and its citizens alike. Even though the COVIDSafe app can improve contact tracing and gift Australians social and economic freedom, its success depends on the citizens’ rational decision-making which can be influenced by considerate government policies that will not infringe privacy laws.
References
Alvino, L., & Franco, M. (2017). The decision-making process between rationality and emotions. International Journal of Scientific Research and Management.
Garoupa, N. (2014). Economic Theory of Criminal Behavior. Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 1280-1286. Web.
Hunt, D. (2020). Contact tracing apps: A behavioral economist’s guide to improving uptake. Web.
Nguyen, B., & Wait, A. (2015). Essentials of Microeconomics [Ebook] (1st Ed.). Routledge. Web.