This model simulates a COVID outbreak occurring at Burnie, Tasmania. It links the extent to the pandemic with governments intervention policies aiming to limit the spread of the virus. The other part of the model illustrates how will the COVID statistics and the government enforcement jointly influence the economic environment in the community. A number of variables are taken into account, indicating positive or negative relationship in the infection and the economy model respectively.
Assumptions
· Government takes responsive actions when the number of acquired cases exceeds 10.
· Government’s prompt actions, involving closure of the state border, lockdown within the city, plans on mandatory vaccination and testing, effectively control the infection status.
· Economic activities are reduced due to stagnation in statewide tourism, closure of brick-and-mortar businesses, and increased unemployment rate, as results of government restrictions.
Insights
Government’s rapid intervention can effectively reduce the infected cases. The national vaccination rollout campaign raises vaccination rate in Australians, and particularly influence the death rate in the infection model. Please drag the slider of vaccination to a higher rate and run the model to compare the outcomes.
Although local economy is negatively affected by government restriction policies, consumer demand in online shopping and government support payments neutralize the negative impact on economy and maintain the level of economic activities when infections get controlled.
Social pressures create {Youth Alienation}, leading to youth developing bad behaviours and committing crimes. This attracts {Police Enforcement} who will, in turn, engage the {Community Leadership} where they introduce programs that are designed to assist youth to prevent re-offending through the development of {Community Clubs}, which then contributes to {Community Development}.
{Police Enforcement} collaborates with {Educational Institutions} to boost retention, which translates to socio-economic progress through {Community Development}. On the other hand, criminals are detained and put through the {Court} system, where the offenders are removed from the community through {Imprisonment}. This results in a stable and safe environment, which aid support for {Community Development).
The role of {Community Leadership} in the system, particularly at the grassroots will result is huge savings in the economy, aiding economic growth. The {Community Leadership} collaborates with the {Employment & Justice Agencies}, translating into socio-economic progress {Community Development}
The Community Development Model
This model provides an understanding into the relationships and links between a range of variable units and fixed units, and how {Community Development} is supported.
As {Youth Alienation} rate increases, the {Crime} rate increases (both variables) demands police enforcement. {Police Enforcement} is a fixed variable as increase in police force is fixed over a period of time.
To increase efficiency, engages or collaborate with:
•{Community Leadership} (fixed and variable) – is fixed for a certain period, and becomes variable as youth criminal activities increases
•{Court} (variable) – as youth criminal activities increase, the court resources reman fixed. It then removes some offenders from the community and imprison them, creating peace and stability in the community
•{Educational Institutions} (variables) – as student retention increases, more institutions are needed.
This system dynamics model visualises the impact on investment into policing and community engagement resources on the crime rates within the youth population of Bourke, NSW.
The model also adds in the variable of funding for safe houses. With a high rate of domestic violence, unfavorable home conditions and other socio-economic factors, many youth roam the streets with no safe place to go, which may lead to negative behaviour patterns.
Total youth population in 2016 for Bourke LGA was 646 (ages 10-29). (Census, 2016) Figures rounded to 700 for purposes of this model simulation.
Constants:
70% registration and engagement rates for Community funded programs
30% attendance rate for Safe Houses
50% crime conviction rate
Variables
Positive and Negative Influences
The model shows a number of key variables that lead youth to become more vunerable to commit a crime (such as alienation, coming from households with domestic violence, boredom and socio-economic disadvantages such as low income), as well as the variables that enhance the youth's likelihood to be a contributing member of the community (developing trusted relationships and connections with others, and having a sense of self worth, purpose and pride in the community). These factors (positive and negative) are aggregated to a single rate of 50% each for the purposes of the simulation, however each individual situation would be unique.
Police Funding / Resources
Police funding and resources means the number of active police officers attending to criminal activities, as well as prevention tactics and education programs to reduce negative behaviour. The slider can be moved to increase or decrease policing levels to view the impact on conviction rates. Current policing levels are approx 40 police to a population of under 3000 in Bourke.
Crime Rate
Youth crime rates in Australia were 3.33% (2016). Acknowledging Bourke crime rates are much higher than average, a crime rate of 40% is set initially for this model, but can be varied using the sliders.
Community Program Funding and Resources means money, facilities and people to develop and support the running of programs such as enhancing employability through mentorship and training, recreational sports and clubs, and volunteering opportunities to give back to the community. As engagement levels in the community programs increase, the levels of crime decrease. The slider can be moved to increase or decrease funding levels to view the impact on youth registrations into the community programs.
Observations
Ideally the simulations should show that an increase in police funding reduces crime rates over time, allowing for more youth committing crimes to be convicted and subsequently rehabilitated, therefore decreasing the overall levels of youth at risk.
A portion of those youth still at risk will move to the youth not at risk category through increased funding of safe houses (allowing a space for them to get out of the negative behaviour loop and away), whom them may consider registering into the community engagement programs. An increase in funding in community engagement programs will see more youth become more constructive members of the community, and that may in turn encourage youth at risk to seek out these programs as well by way of social and sub-cultural influences.
This model is designed for the local government of Burnie, Tasmania, aiming to help with balancing COIVD-19 and economic impacts during a possible outbreak.
The model has been developed based upon the SIR model (Susceptible, Infected, Recovered) model used in epidemiology.
It lists several possible actions that can be taken by the government during a COVID-19 outbreak and provide the economic impact simulation.
The model allow users to Change the government policies factors (Strength of Policies) and simulate the total economic impact.
Interestingly, the government plicies largely help with controlling the COVID outbreak. However, the stronger the policies are, the larger impact on local economy
I propose we grow this sim model (or similar) over time to help ourselves better understand the opposing investment and austerity strategies now being advocated for the U.S. government. The hope is to build as simple a model as possible that subsumes the major underlying feedback loops that probably exist in the mental models of proponents of each of these positions. Starting this model was inspired by this Investment vs. Austerity discussion http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Investment-vs-Austerity-How-can-4582801.S.157876413
