Pandemic Parallels: A Comparative Analysis of COVID-19 and the Bubonic Plague Through a Socioeconomic and Public Health Lens

Martin Munyao Muinde

Email: ephantusmartin@gmail.com

Abstract

This article presents a comprehensive comparative analysis of two significant pandemic events separated by nearly seven centuries: the 14th-century Bubonic Plague (Black Death) and the contemporary COVID-19 pandemic. Through examination of historical records, epidemiological data, and socioeconomic analyses, this research illuminates striking parallels and critical differences between these catastrophic public health crises. The investigation focuses on transmission dynamics, mortality patterns, societal responses, economic impacts, and the evolution of medical interventions. By contextualizing these pandemics within their respective historical periods, this analysis offers valuable insights into the advancement of pandemic management strategies and the persistent socioeconomic vulnerabilities that transcend temporal boundaries. This comparative framework provides a novel perspective for understanding pandemic phenomena and may inform future public health policy and preparedness strategies in an increasingly interconnected global community.

Keywords: COVID-19, Bubonic Plague, pandemic comparison, public health history, disease transmission, socioeconomic impact, epidemiological analysis, medieval medicine, modern healthcare systems, global health governance

Introduction

The emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic in late 2019 produced a global health crisis of unprecedented scale in modern times, triggering comparisons with historical pandemic events that similarly devastated human populations. Among these historical references, the Bubonic Plague, colloquially known as the Black Death (1347-1351), stands as perhaps the most consequential pandemic in recorded human history (Benedictow, 2017). While separated by approximately 670 years of scientific advancement, technological development, and social evolution, these two pandemics reveal remarkable similarities in their societal impacts, alongside instructive differences that illuminate the trajectory of human progress in disease management and public health infrastructure.

This comparative analysis is not merely an academic exercise but serves as a critical framework for understanding pandemic phenomena across different historical contexts. By examining how societies respond to large-scale disease events across vastly different technological and scientific landscapes, we gain valuable insights into both the constants of human behavior during crises and the variables that might be manipulated through policy intervention (Green, 2020). As Snowden (2019) argues, “Epidemics are a category of disease that seem to hold up the mirror to human beings as to who we really are” (p. 8), revealing underlying social structures, inequalities, and cultural values that might otherwise remain obscured.

The contemporaneous documentation of the COVID-19 pandemic provides an unprecedented opportunity to analyze real-time pandemic responses with the historical perspective afforded by extensive scholarship on the Bubonic Plague. This article examines five key dimensions of comparison: (1) pathogen characteristics and transmission dynamics; (2) mortality patterns and demographic impacts; (3) containment strategies and social responses; (4) economic disruptions and recoveries; and (5) long-term sociopolitical transformations. Through this multifaceted analysis, we develop a nuanced understanding of how pandemics function as both biological and social phenomena.

Pathogen Characteristics and Transmission Dynamics

The Bubonic Plague: Bacterial Devastation

The Bubonic Plague resulted from infection by the bacterium Yersinia pestis, primarily transmitted to humans through fleas carried by rodents, particularly rats (Wagner et al., 2014). This zoonotic transmission chain created complex epidemiological patterns that were entirely opaque to medieval observers, who lacked the microbiological understanding to identify the causative agent. Contemporary analysis of ancient DNA has confirmed the presence of Y. pestis in skeletal remains from the period, validating historical accounts of the disease’s presentation (Spyrou et al., 2019).

The bacterium typically entered the human body through flea bites, traveling through the lymphatic system and causing characteristic swollen lymph nodes (buboes) that gave the disease its name. In advanced cases, the infection could develop into pneumonic plague, enabling direct human-to-human transmission through respiratory droplets—a particularly virulent and rapidly fatal form of the disease (Bramanti et al., 2016). The pneumonic variant facilitated explosive spread in densely populated medieval urban centers, where poor sanitation and crowded living conditions created ideal conditions for the disease to propagate.

The medieval understanding of disease transmission centered around miasma theory—the belief that “bad air” or noxious vapors caused illness—and humoral imbalances within the body (Cohn, 2010). This conceptual framework severely limited effective intervention strategies, as it failed to identify the actual transmission mechanisms and instead focused on ineffective measures such as aromatic fumigation, bloodletting, and the application of various herbal concoctions (Aberth, 2021).

COVID-19: Viral Global Spread

In stark contrast, COVID-19 emerged as a viral respiratory disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, a novel coronavirus first identified in Wuhan, China, in December 2019 (Zhou et al., 2020). Unlike the Bubonic Plague, the causative agent of COVID-19 was identified with remarkable speed—within weeks of the initial outbreak—through advanced genetic sequencing technologies. This rapid identification enabled targeted research into transmission mechanisms, pathophysiology, and potential therapeutic approaches.

COVID-19 primarily spreads through respiratory transmission, with infected individuals releasing viral particles through breathing, speaking, coughing, and sneezing. The virus can travel through droplets and smaller aerosol particles, which can remain suspended in the air, particularly in poorly ventilated indoor spaces (Tang et al., 2021). Additionally, fomite transmission (via contaminated surfaces) was initially considered significant, though subsequent research has suggested this route plays a less substantial role than airborne transmission (Goldman, 2020).

A critical feature distinguishing COVID-19 transmission dynamics from many historical pandemics is the role of asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission, which enabled the virus to spread silently through populations before detection systems could identify outbreaks (Furukawa et al., 2020). This characteristic greatly complicated containment efforts and necessitated broad-based interventions rather than targeted isolation of symptomatic individuals.

Comparative Analysis of Transmission Dynamics

The fundamental differences in transmission mechanisms between these two pandemics reflect the evolutionary strategies of their respective pathogens and have profound implications for containment approaches. While both diseases spread efficiently in dense human populations, their transmission routes dictated different patterns of geographic dissemination. The Bubonic Plague followed trade routes and rat populations, moving at the speed of medieval transportation—primarily ships and overland caravans (Campbell, 2016). COVID-19, in contrast, spread at the speed of modern air travel, reaching global pandemic status within months rather than years.

Despite these differences, both pandemics revealed how human connectivity serves as a critical vector for disease propagation. The medieval trade networks that facilitated the Bubonic Plague’s spread throughout Eurasia represent a slower, less extensive version of the globally interconnected transportation system that enabled COVID-19’s rapid worldwide dissemination (Yue et al., 2017). This pattern underscores a persistent vulnerability in human civilization: the same networks that enable economic prosperity and cultural exchange also create efficient pathways for pathogen transmission.

Mortality Patterns and Demographic Impacts

The Devastating Toll of the Black Death

The mortality rate of the Bubonic Plague stands as one of the most catastrophic in human history, with contemporary scholarship estimating that between 30% and 60% of Europe’s population perished during the initial wave from 1347 to 1351 (DeWitte, 2014). In absolute numbers, this represents approximately 25 million deaths in Europe alone, with global estimates reaching 75-200 million fatalities across Eurasia and North Africa (Green, 2015).

The demographic impact was transformative, creating acute labor shortages that fundamentally altered medieval economic systems and social hierarchies. The plague exhibited a relatively indiscriminate mortality pattern across age groups, though some research suggests slightly higher survival rates among younger individuals (DeWitte, 2010). This broad demographic impact distinguishes the Black Death from many other epidemic diseases, which often disproportionately affect either the very young or the elderly.

Regional variation in mortality rates was significant, with some communities losing over 80% of their population while others remained relatively untouched. Urban centers typically experienced higher mortality rates than rural areas, reflecting the transmission advantages of the bacterium in densely populated environments with poor sanitation infrastructure (Aberth, 2021). The catastrophic mortality caused widespread abandonment of villages, demographic collapse, and significant population redistribution across European landscapes.

COVID-19’s Differential Impact

In stark contrast to the Black Death, COVID-19 has exhibited a much lower overall case fatality rate, estimated at approximately 0.5-1% in most populations with adequate healthcare access, though this figure varies significantly by region, age group, and comorbidity status (O’Driscoll et al., 2021). The age-stratified mortality pattern of COVID-19 shows a dramatic increase in risk with advanced age, with individuals over 65 facing significantly higher mortality risks than younger cohorts. This pattern reflects the importance of immune senescence and the increased prevalence of comorbidities in older populations.

As of May 2025, the global death toll from COVID-19 has reached approximately 7-8 million confirmed deaths, though excess mortality analyses suggest the true figure may be substantially higher due to underreporting in regions with limited testing capacity and healthcare infrastructure (Karlinsky & Kobak, 2021). While this represents a profound human tragedy, the proportional demographic impact remains orders of magnitude smaller than that of the Black Death, with global population reduction of less than 0.1%.

The geographic distribution of COVID-19 mortality has been notably uneven, reflecting disparities in healthcare system capacity, vaccination access, population age structure, prevalence of comorbidities, and implementation of public health measures. This heterogeneity underscores the critical role of social determinants of health in shaping pandemic outcomes within the modern context (Clark et al., 2020).

Comparative Mortality Analysis

The stark difference in mortality rates between these two pandemics reflects both the inherent characteristics of their respective pathogens and the advancement of medical science and public health infrastructure. The Bubonic Plague, with its high virulence and untreatable nature in the medieval context, represented an existential threat to affected populations. COVID-19, while highly transmissible, poses a significantly lower individual mortality risk in contexts with functional healthcare systems and access to modern medical interventions.

However, both pandemics reveal consistent patterns of disparate impact based on socioeconomic status. Historical records indicate that while the Black Death affected all social classes, the nobility often had greater capacity to flee affected areas, potentially reducing their exposure (Cohn, 2010). Similarly, COVID-19 has disproportionately impacted socioeconomically disadvantaged populations, who often face higher exposure risks through essential worker status, reduced ability to work remotely, and limited access to healthcare resources (Patel et al., 2020).

This persistent pattern of disproportionate impact on vulnerable populations across radically different historical contexts suggests a fundamental relationship between social inequality and pandemic vulnerability—a relationship that transcends specific pathogens, technological capacities, and historical periods.

Containment Strategies and Social Responses

Medieval Pandemic Management

The medieval response to the Bubonic Plague was severely constrained by contemporary understanding of disease etiology and transmission. Without knowledge of germ theory or the specific transmission mechanisms of Y. pestis, interventions were largely based on miasmatic theories of disease or religious interpretations of divine punishment (Cohn, 2010). Nevertheless, several containment strategies emerged that show remarkable parallels to modern approaches.

Quarantine measures represent perhaps the most notable example of effective pre-modern public health intervention. The term itself derives from the Italian “quaranta giorni” (forty days), referring to the period ships were required to remain isolated in the harbor before passengers and crew could disembark in 14th-century Venice and Ragusa (modern Dubrovnik) (Tognotti, 2013). These measures, while implemented without understanding of incubation periods or infectious disease dynamics, effectively reduced transmission by isolating potentially infected individuals.

Other medieval responses included flight from affected areas (for those with sufficient resources), the establishment of pest houses for the infected, and various forms of social distancing. Cities implemented restrictions on public gatherings, funeral practices, and trade activities during outbreaks (Aberth, 2021). These measures were typically implemented by municipal authorities rather than centralized states, creating significant regional variation in response strategies.

Religious and cultural responses featured prominently in medieval plague management, with increased religious processions, prayer assemblies, and penitential activities—interventions that modern epidemiology would recognize as potentially counterproductive as they increased close contact among population groups (Cohn, 2018). More extreme responses included persecution of marginalized groups, particularly Jewish communities, who were scapegoated as alleged sources or spreaders of the disease in many European regions.

Modern Pandemic Control Measures

The COVID-19 response demonstrates both the tremendous advancement in scientific understanding of disease and the persistent challenges in implementing effective public health measures across diverse populations. Within weeks of identifying the novel coronavirus, international scientific collaboration had sequenced its genome, developed diagnostic tests, and begun investigating transmission dynamics (Wu et al., 2020). This rapid scientific response represents an unprecedented achievement in the history of pandemic management.

Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) formed the cornerstone of early COVID-19 containment strategies, including travel restrictions, border closures, stay-at-home orders, business closures, mask mandates, and physical distancing requirements (Hsiang et al., 2020). These measures, implemented with varying degrees of stringency and compliance across different regions, aimed to reduce transmission by limiting human contact networks. Digital contact tracing, symptom tracking applications, and other technological tools provided capabilities unimaginable in previous pandemic contexts.

The development and deployment of effective vaccines against COVID-19 within approximately one year of the virus’s identification represents perhaps the most significant divergence from historical pandemic responses. Multiple vaccine platforms—including novel mRNA technology—were developed, tested, manufactured, and distributed at unprecedented speed, providing a pathway to population immunity that was entirely unavailable to previous generations facing novel pathogens (Polack et al., 2020).

Comparative Analysis of Containment Approaches

Despite the vast technological gap separating these pandemic responses, several striking parallels emerge. Both eras implemented forms of quarantine, isolation, and social distancing as primary non-pharmaceutical interventions. The fundamental logic of reducing contact networks to interrupt transmission chains remains consistent across these widely separated historical contexts, suggesting certain foundational principles of epidemic control transcend specific technological capabilities.

Both pandemics also reveal the critical importance of public communication, trust in authorities, and community compliance with intervention measures. Historical records document resistance to quarantine orders during plague outbreaks, with individuals attempting to circumvent restrictions or conceal cases to avoid mandatory isolation (Cohn, 2018). Similarly, COVID-19 control measures have faced variable compliance, influenced by factors including political polarization, information ecosystems, cultural values regarding individual liberty versus collective responsibility, and trust in scientific institutions (Van Bavel et al., 2020).

Perhaps most significantly, both pandemic responses illuminate the tension between economic imperatives and public health priorities. Medieval authorities often delayed implementing restrictive measures due to concerns about commercial impacts, particularly in merchant republics dependent on trade (Aberth, 2021). This tension has manifested similarly during COVID-19, with ongoing debates about the appropriate balance between disease suppression and economic activity (Chudik et al., 2020).

Economic Disruptions and Recoveries

Economic Transformation After the Black Death

The Bubonic Plague triggered profound economic restructuring throughout affected regions, primarily through the mechanism of extreme labor scarcity following population losses of 30-60%. This demographic shock fundamentally altered the relationship between labor and capital, particularly in Western Europe, where the pre-existing manorial system experienced significant stress (Pamuk, 2007).

Wages increased substantially for surviving workers across most sectors, with agricultural laborers in England, for instance, seeing real wage increases of 100% or more in the decades following the initial outbreak (Clark, 2007). This shift in economic leverage contributed to the gradual erosion of feudal obligations and increased geographic mobility among the peasant class. Land values and rents declined precipitously as demand contracted, leading to consolidation of holdings in some regions and abandonment of marginal agricultural lands in others.

Urban economies experienced significant disruption followed by structural reorganization. Certain industries, particularly those serving elite consumption, faced severe contraction due to demand reduction and labor shortages. However, per capita wealth often increased among survivors, creating new patterns of consumption that stimulated innovation in production methods and commercial organization (Britnell, 2008).

Trade networks experienced immediate severe disruption during acute outbreak phases but demonstrated remarkable resilience in recovery. Mediterranean commercial systems, particularly those centered around Italian maritime republics, reestablished functioning networks within decades of the initial pandemic wave (Campbell, 2016). This resilience suggests that the institutional frameworks and commercial expertise developed during the Commercial Revolution of the preceding centuries provided sufficient adaptive capacity to overcome even catastrophic demographic shocks.

COVID-19’s Economic Impact

The economic impact of COVID-19 differs fundamentally from historical pandemics in both mechanism and scale. Rather than demographic contraction through mortality, COVID-19’s economic effects have operated primarily through the implementation of containment measures that restricted economic activity and altered consumption patterns (Fernandes, 2020). This distinction represents a crucial difference: the economic disruption reflects societal choices to prioritize public health over short-term economic activity, rather than an exogenous demographic shock.

Global GDP contracted by approximately 3.5% in 2020—the most severe global recession since the Great Depression—with significant variation across regions and economic sectors (IMF, 2021). Industries requiring physical proximity or facilitating gatherings (hospitality, tourism, entertainment, transportation) experienced disproportionate impacts, while sectors amenable to remote work or supporting digital infrastructure demonstrated resilience or growth.

Labor market effects have been highly heterogeneous, characterized by what economists have termed a “K-shaped recovery,” with divergent trajectories for different demographic groups and economic sectors (Aaronson & Aaronson, 2020). Workers in digitally-enabled knowledge economy positions generally maintained employment through remote work arrangements, while service sector employees, particularly those in lower-wage positions, experienced high rates of unemployment or underemployment.

Government intervention in economic stabilization has occurred at unprecedented scale, with fiscal support packages in advanced economies often exceeding 10% of GDP (Baqaee & Farhi, 2021). These interventions—including direct payments to citizens, expanded unemployment benefits, business support programs, and various forms of credit guaranty—represent a qualitatively different approach to pandemic economic management than available in any previous historical context.

Comparative Economic Analysis

The economic impacts of these two pandemics reveal both fundamental differences and intriguing parallels. The Black Death operated through demographic contraction, creating labor scarcity that increased worker leverage and per capita wealth among survivors, despite aggregate economic contraction. COVID-19, conversely, has created temporary labor market disruption through mobility restrictions and sectoral shutdowns rather than permanent demographic change.

Both pandemics have accelerated pre-existing economic trends and exposed structural vulnerabilities. The Black Death hastened the decline of the manorial system and contributed to the emergence of more commercialized agricultural production in Western Europe (Pamuk, 2007). Similarly, COVID-19 has accelerated digitalization processes, remote work adoption, and automation trends that were underway before the pandemic (Chernoff & Warman, 2021).

Income inequality dynamics appear distinctly different between these pandemic episodes. Historical evidence suggests the Black Death reduced economic inequality through wage increases for lower-skilled workers and reduced returns to land ownership (Alfani & Murphy, 2017). Preliminary evidence suggests COVID-19 may have increased inequality in many contexts, with job losses concentrated among lower-wage workers and asset price appreciation benefiting those with capital holdings (Adams-Prassl et al., 2020).

Perhaps most significantly, both pandemic episodes demonstrate the fundamental relationship between public health and economic systems. The conceptual separation of “health” and “economy” as competing priorities represents a false dichotomy in both historical and contemporary contexts; sustainable economic activity requires effective management of population health risks, while economic resources provide essential capacity for public health interventions.

Long-term Sociopolitical Transformations

Post-Plague Societal Restructuring

The Black Death catalyzed profound sociopolitical transformations throughout Eurasia, though these changes manifested differently across various political and cultural contexts. In Western Europe, the demographic collapse accelerated the decline of feudal social structures, contributed to reduced clerical authority, and potentially facilitated the eventual emergence of early modern state forms (Herlihy, 1997).

Religious institutions faced significant challenges in explaining and addressing the catastrophe, undermining ecclesiastical authority in some regions. The failure of traditional religious responses to prevent or mitigate the pandemic contributed to increased religious skepticism among some populations and may have created intellectual conditions more conducive to the later emergence of Reformation thought (Ziegler, 2015).

Medical practice and theory underwent significant development following the Black Death, with increased emphasis on empirical observation and practical intervention rather than purely theoretical approaches based on classical authorities (Demaitre, 2013). Public health infrastructure emerged in more systematic forms, particularly in Italian city-states, which developed permanent health boards and institutional frameworks for epidemic management that persisted for centuries (Henderson, 2019).

Cultural and artistic expressions reflected the profound psychological impact of mass mortality, with themes of death prominence in post-plague visual arts, literature, and religious practice. The “memento mori” and “danse macabre” traditions in art and literature reflect attempts to process collective trauma and incorporate awareness of mortality into cultural frameworks (Byrne, 2006).

COVID-19’s Emerging Social Impact

While still unfolding, COVID-19 has already produced significant sociopolitical impacts across multiple domains. The pandemic has tested governance systems worldwide, with varying outcomes that often reflect pre-existing institutional strengths and vulnerabilities rather than novel capabilities (Greer et al., 2021). Public trust in various institutions—scientific, governmental, media—has shown significant fluctuation, with polarization along ideological lines in many contexts.

Digital transformation has accelerated dramatically across multiple sectors, including education, healthcare, retail, and workplace organization. Remote work adoption increased from approximately 5% of the U.S. workforce pre-pandemic to nearly 60% during peak restriction periods, with significant portions expected to remain permanent (Barrero et al., 2021). This spatial reorganization of economic activity may have long-term implications for urban development, transportation systems, and residential patterns.

Global cooperation systems have simultaneously demonstrated both remarkable scientific collaboration and significant strain in political coordination. While international scientific cooperation produced vaccines at unprecedented speed, nationalistic approaches to vaccine acquisition and distribution revealed limitations in global governance mechanisms for equitable resource allocation during crisis periods (Moon et al., 2021).

Healthcare systems worldwide have undergone substantial stress testing and adaptation, potentially accelerating reforms in telemedicine adoption, public health infrastructure investment, and emergency preparedness protocols. Mental health impacts represent a significant secondary pandemic effect, with increased prevalence of anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress across multiple populations (Xiong et al., 2020).

Comparative Analysis of Sociopolitical Impacts

Both pandemics have functioned as accelerants of pre-existing social trends rather than purely exogenous shocks creating entirely novel conditions. The Black Death hastened economic and religious developments already underway in medieval Europe, while COVID-19 appears to be accelerating digitalization processes, remote work adoption, and potentially deglobalization trends that preceded the pandemic (Sneader & Singhal, 2021).

Authority structures face similar challenges across these pandemic contexts, with population experiences of uncontrolled mortality creating fundamental tests of leadership legitimacy. Medieval religious and political authorities struggled to maintain credibility when traditional responses proved ineffective against the plague; similarly, modern governance systems have faced credibility challenges when pandemic containment strategies failed to prevent significant mortality (Greer et al., 2021).

Both pandemic episodes reveal the critical importance of information ecosystems in shaping collective responses. Medieval populations relied on religious frameworks, oral transmission, and limited textual sources to understand the unfolding catastrophe (Cohn, 2018). Contemporary populations face different challenges—information abundance rather than scarcity—with misinformation, competing expert claims, and politicized communication environments complicating coherent response formulation (Zarocostas, 2020).

Perhaps most fundamentally, both pandemics have forced confrontation with mortality and vulnerability at both individual and societal levels. The experience of uncontrolled infectious disease spread challenges modern assumptions about technological mastery over nature and reintroduces awareness of biological contingency into societies accustomed to perceiving infectious disease as a largely conquered threat (Snowden, 2019).

Conclusion

This comparative analysis of COVID-19 and the Bubonic Plague reveals both striking parallels and instructive differences across nearly seven centuries of human development. Despite vast advancements in scientific understanding, technological capability, and institutional complexity, contemporary societies face persistent vulnerabilities that echo medieval experiences. The fundamental challenges of balancing economic imperatives with public health necessities, maintaining social cohesion during crisis periods, and distributing response resources equitably transcend specific historical contexts.

Several key insights emerge from this comparative framework. First, pandemic events consistently function as accelerants of pre-existing social and economic trends rather than purely exogenous shocks. Both the Black Death and COVID-19 have hastened developments already underway, suggesting that pandemic periods intensify rather than fundamentally redirect historical trajectories.

Second, information ecosystems play critical roles in shaping pandemic responses, though the specific challenges have inverted over time. Medieval populations struggled with information scarcity and limited explanatory frameworks, while contemporary societies face information abundance and the challenge of distinguishing reliable guidance from misinformation in complex media environments.

Third, effective pandemic management requires integration of scientific knowledge with contextually appropriate implementation strategies that acknowledge social, cultural, and economic realities. The most sophisticated biological understanding proves insufficient when divorced from effective communication strategies, trust-building measures, and consideration of implementation feasibility across diverse populations.

Finally, both pandemic episodes demonstrate that public health and economic prosperity exist in symbiotic rather than oppositional relationship. Sustainable economic systems require effective management of population health risks, while economic resources provide essential capacity for public health interventions—a fundamental relationship that transcends specific historical periods or economic structures.

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to evolve, this historical perspective offers valuable context for understanding contemporary challenges. By recognizing both the unique aspects of our current situation and the persistent patterns that connect it to historical precedents, we may develop more nuanced and effective approaches to pandemic management, both for the present crisis and inevitable future challenges.

References

Aaronson, D., & Aaronson, S. (2020). Examining the uneven economic outcomes of COVID-19. Chicago Fed Insights, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.

Aberth, J. (2021). The Black Death: A new history of the great mortality in Europe, 1347-1500. Oxford University Press.

Adams-Prassl, A., Boneva, T., Golin, M., & Rauh, C. (2020). Inequality in the impact of the coronavirus shock: Evidence from real time surveys. Journal of Public Economics, 189, 104245.

Alfani, G., & Murphy, T. E. (2017). Plague and lethal epidemics in the pre-industrial world. The Journal of Economic History, 77(1), 314-343.

Baqaee, D., & Farhi, E. (2021). Supply and demand in disaggregated Keynesian economies with an application to the Covid-19 crisis. American Economic Review, 111(5), 1560-1605.

Barrero, J. M., Bloom, N., & Davis, S. J. (2021). Why working from home will stick. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series, No. 28731.

Benedictow, O. J. (2017). The Complete History of the Black Death. Boydell & Brewer.

Bramanti, B., Dean, K. R., Walløe, L., & Chr. Stenseth, N. (2016). The Third Plague Pandemic in Europe. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 283(1842), 20160702.

Britnell, R. H. (2008). Britain and Ireland 1050-1530: Economy and society. Oxford University Press.

Byrne, J. P. (2006). Daily life during the Black Death. Greenwood Press.

Campbell, B. M. S. (2016). The great transition: Climate, disease and society in the late-medieval world. Cambridge University Press.

Chernoff, A. W., & Warman, C. (2021). COVID-19 and implications for automation. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series, No. 27249.

Chudik, A., Mohaddes, K., Pesaran, M. H., Raissi, M., & Rebucci, A. (2020). Economic consequences of Covid-19: A counterfactual multi-country analysis. VoxEU CEPR Policy Portal.

Clark, A., Jit, M., Warren-Gash, C., Guthrie, B., Wang, H. H., Mercer, S. W., … & Jarvis, C. I. (2020). Global, regional, and national estimates of the population at increased risk of severe COVID-19 due to underlying health conditions in 2020: a modelling study. The Lancet Global Health, 8(8), e1003-e1017.

Clark, G. (2007). The long march of history: Farm wages, population, and economic growth, England 1209-1869. The Economic History Review, 60(1), 97-135.

Cohn, S. K. (2010). Cultures of plague: Medical thinking at the end of the Renaissance. Oxford University Press.

Cohn, S. K. (2018). Epidemics: Hate and compassion from the plague of Athens to AIDS. Oxford University Press.

Demaitre, L. (2013). Medieval medicine: The art of healing, from head to toe. Praeger.

DeWitte, S. N. (2010). Age patterns of mortality during the Black Death in London, A.D. 1349-1350. Journal of Archaeological Science, 37(12), 3394-3400.

DeWitte, S. N. (2014). The anthropology of plague: Insights from bioarcheological analyses of epidemic cemeteries. The Medieval Globe, 1(1), 97-123.

Fernandes, N. (2020). Economic effects of coronavirus outbreak (COVID-19) on the world economy. SSRN Electronic Journal, 3557504.

Furukawa, N. W., Brooks, J. T., & Sobel, J. (2020). Evidence supporting transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 while presymptomatic or asymptomatic. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 26(7), e201595.

Goldman, E. (2020). Exaggerated risk of transmission of COVID-19 by fomites. The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 20(8), 892-893.

Green, M. H. (2015). Taking “pandemic” seriously: Making the Black Death global. The Medieval Globe, 1(1), 27-61.

Green, M. H. (2020). The four black deaths. The American Historical Review, 125(5), 1601-1631.

Greer, S. L., King, E. J., da Fonseca, E. M., & Peralta-Santos, A. (2021). Coronavirus politics: The comparative politics and policy of COVID-19. University of Michigan Press.

Henderson, J. (2019). Florence under siege: Surviving plague in an early modern city. Yale University Press.

Herlihy, D. (1997). The Black Death and the transformation of the West. Harvard University Press.

Hsiang, S., Allen, D., Annan-Phan, S., Bell, K., Bolliger, I., Chong, T., … & Wu, T. (2020). The effect of large-scale anti-contagion policies on the COVID-19 pandemic. Nature, 584(7820), 262-267.

International Monetary Fund. (2021). World Economic Outlook Update, January 2021: Policy support and vaccines expected to lift activity.

Karlinsky, A., & Kobak, D. (2021). Tracking excess mortality across countries during the COVID-19 pandemic with the World Mortality Dataset. eLife, 10, e69336.

Moon, S., Alonso Ruiz, A., & Vieira, M. (2021). Averting future vaccine injustice. New England Journal of Medicine, 385(3), 193-196.

O’Driscoll, M., Ribeiro Dos Santos, G., Wang, L., Cummings, D. A., Azman, A. S., Paireau, J., … & Salje, H. (2021). Age-specific mortality and immunity patterns of SARS-CoV-2. Nature, 590(7844), 140-145.

Pamuk, Ş. (2007). The Black Death and the origins of the ‘Great Divergence’ across Europe, 1300-1600. European Review of Economic History, 11(3), 289-317.

Patel, J. A., Nielsen, F. B. H., Badiani, A. A., Assi, S., Unadkat, V. A., Patel, B., … & Wardle, H. (2020). Poverty, inequality and COVID-19: The forgotten vulnerable. Public Health, 183, 110-111.

Polack, F. P., Thomas, S. J., Kitchin, N., Absalon, J., Gurtman, A., Lockhart, S., … & Gruber, W. C. (2020). Safety and efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccine. New England Journal of Medicine, 383(27), 2603-2615.

Snowden, F. M. (2019). Epidemics and society: From the Black Death to the present. Yale University Press.

Sneader, K., & Singhal, S. (2021). The next normal arrives: Trends that will define 2021—and beyond. McKinsey Global Institute.

Spyrou, M. A., Tukhbatova, R. I., Wang, C. C., Valtueña, A. A., Lankapalli, A. K., Kondrashin, V. V., … & Krause