The Great Pause: Essential, Non-Essential—Or Expendable?

After yesterday’s personal pause I am ready to dive into this four-part investigation into the global COVID-19 "pause"—what it revealed, what it cost, and how it might inform a more intentional redesign of work, equity, and resilience in the future.

When the World Froze—and We Drew a Line Through It

The COVID-19 pandemic led to unprecedented disruption in global economic and workplace systems. In early 2020, governments worldwide implemented rapid lockdown measures designed to limit viral spread, categorising entire economies into two groups: "essential" and "non-essential." Essential services continued operating due to their critical societal role, while non-essential activities faced abrupt closures (World Health Organization [WHO], 2020). While aiming to protect public health, this binary distinction triggered severe economic, social, and mental health consequences, highlighting significant structural inequalities and vulnerabilities in global labour markets.

The Logic of the Label
Who Decided What Mattered—and Based on What?

Criteria for essential versus non-essential categorisation aimed at maintaining societal functionality, public safety, and supporting pandemic responses. Essential sectors broadly included healthcare, emergency services, utilities (water, electricity), food production, financial institutions, transportation, and public safety (OECD, 2020).

Decision-making authority was typically localised, with national or regional governments guided by broad recommendations from international bodies such as the WHO, OECD, and ILO (WHO, 2020; ILO, 2020). This lack of universal guidelines resulted in highly reactive and inconsistent decisions.

A Patchwork of Priorities
From Frites to Firearms: How the World Redefined “Essential”

Significant inconsistencies emerged globally, underscoring the absence of an international standard. Regional decisions frequently reflected local economic considerations, political pressures, cultural values, and practical supply-chain realities:

• United States: States differed notably; Pennsylvania initially classified construction as non-essential, while neighbouring Delaware permitted it (Redford & Dills, 2021). Liquor stores closed in Pennsylvania but remained operational in Delaware and Maryland, causing confusion and cross-border compliance challenges.

• Europe: Belgium allowed culturally significant takeaway "frites" stands to remain open despite restaurant closures (ILO, 2020). The Netherlands classified bicycle repair shops essential due to local transportation reliance, and cannabis coffee shops remained open to mitigate illicit trade and support mental wellbeing (ILO, 2020).

• Asia: India initially banned alcohol sales to prevent social gatherings, subsequently reversing due to concerns about illegal markets (OECD, 2020). Singapore prioritised telecommunications and IT services immediately, recognising their necessity for remote working and education continuity (OECD, 2020).

• Australasia: New Zealand implemented strict lockdowns with a narrow definition of essentials focused solely on life-sustaining services. Australia took a more gradual approach, broadening its definition of non-essential sectors such as hospitality and entertainment over time (OECD, 2020).

These inconsistencies highlighted the reactive nature of policy-making under crisis conditions, with decisions frequently changing in response to public pressure, lobbying, and the complexities of interconnected supply chains.

North America (USA, Canada):

• Essential: Healthcare, supermarkets, pharmacies, utilities, financial institutions, public transport, gun stores (selected states).

• Non-Essential: Restaurants (except takeaway), gyms, cinemas, shopping malls, personal care, schools, construction (selected states).

Europe (UK, France, Belgium, Netherlands):

• Essential: Healthcare, supermarkets, pharmacies, bicycle repairs, selected takeaway services, utilities.

• Non-Essential: Restaurants, leisure venues, non-essential retail, personal care services, theatres, museums.

Asia (India, Singapore, China):

• Essential: Healthcare, groceries, IT and telecommunications, utilities, delivery services.

• Non-Essential: Liquor stores (initially India), entertainment venues, manufacturing (non-critical).

Australasia (Australia, New Zealand):

• Essential: Healthcare, supermarkets, agriculture, public transport, utilities.

• Non-Essential: Restaurants, cafes, tourism, cinemas, gyms.

Arbitrary Distinctions, Lasting Consequences
The Real-World Cost of Who Got to Work—and Who Didn’t

The arbitrary nature of these categorisations profoundly impacted economies globally. Key sectors—hospitality, tourism, retail, and personal services—suffered severe financial losses and extensive job cuts, particularly in countries lacking robust financial safety nets. According to the International Labour Organization (ILO, 2021), global working hours declined by 8.8% in 2020, equivalent to approximately 255 million full-time jobs lost. Small businesses within non-essential categories experienced significant permanent closures, deepening socio-economic inequalities and exacerbating vulnerabilities among marginalised groups (IMF, 2021).

Health, Harm, and the Hidden Toll
Burnout, Risk, and the Human Price of Keeping the Lights On

Essential workers faced significantly increased exposure risks, resulting in higher COVID-19 infection rates. Research from Pennsylvania revealed that essential workers had a 55% higher risk of infection compared to non-essential workers (Song et al., 2021). This increased risk contributed to widespread anxiety, depression, burnout, and emotional exhaustion among frontline workers globally (Condon et al., 2021). WHO (2020) noted particularly elevated anxiety and depression among healthcare professionals.

Conversely, non-essential workers experienced increased anxiety and depression due to sudden unemployment, prolonged financial insecurity, and isolation. Economic instability intensified mental health challenges, with reports indicating higher substance abuse and domestic stress among those unable to work remotely (OECD, 2020; UN DESA, 2021).

Labour, Inequality, and the Illusion of Support
Why “Heroes” Were Never Properly Protected

ILO highlighted deteriorating labour conditions, especially among informal and low-paid essential workers who frequently lacked adequate protective measures, social security, and remuneration despite their critical roles (ILO, 2021). Pandemic-induced temporary wage increases and protective measures rarely persisted, highlighting a systemic undervaluation of essential labour, exacerbating long-term socio-economic inequalities.

• Was categorisation globally standardised or reactive?

Primarily reactive, lacking a global standard, driven by rapid, ad-hoc policy-making under uncertainty.

• Which industries were miscategorised, and why?

Sectors like construction and retail experienced inconsistent classification due to economic pressures and lobbying, underlining the absence of clear international guidelines.

• How did categorisation affect global economic inequalities?

The approach disproportionately impacted lower-income and precarious workers, amplifying global economic disparities.

Rethinking What We Value
Lessons from a World That Functioned With Half Itself Shut Down

The COVID-19 pandemic starkly illuminated vulnerabilities within global economic and social systems, revealing inconsistent and reactive decision-making that exacerbated inequalities. Notably, despite a significant proportion of the workforce staying home, societies continued functioning, challenging traditional perspectives on productivity and essential services.

In part 2, I will critically examine crisis investments, resource allocations, and compare these pandemic-related economic disruptions with the persistent annual economic toll of workplace burnout—a parallel crisis often overlooked yet devastatingly impactful.

References

Condon, E. M., Dettmer, A. M., Gee, D. G., Hagan, C., Lee, K. S., Mayes, L. C., & Stover, C. S. (2021). COVID-19 and essential workers: A narrative review of health outcomes and moral injury. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(4), 1446. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18041446

International Labour Organization (ILO). (2021). COVID-19 and the world of work (7th ed.). International Labour Office. https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/coronavirus/impacts-and-responses/lang--en/index.htm

International Monetary Fund (IMF). (2021). Inequality and COVID-19. Finance & Development. IMF. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2021/03/inequality-and-covid-19.htm

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2020). Policy responses to coronavirus (COVID-19). OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/

Redford, A., & Dills, A. K. (2021). Essential or not? Knowledge problems and COVID‐19 stay‐at‐home orders. Southern Economic Journal, 87(4), 1229–1247. https://doi.org/10.1002/soej.12491

Song, H., McKenna, R., Chen, A. T., David, G., & Smith-McLallen, A. (2021). The impact of the non-essential business closure policy on COVID-19 infection rates. Health Policy, 125(6), 740–748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2021.04.002

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA). (2021). COVID-19 socio-economic impact. United Nations Publications. https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/everyone-included-covid-19.html

World Health Organization (WHO). (2020). Maintaining essential health services during COVID-19. WHO Publications. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-essential_health_services-2020.1