EFFECT OF COVID 19

ON TRADE AND

BUSINESS

A PROJECT SUBMITTED TO

UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI FOR PARTIAL OF THE DEGREE OF

MASTER IN COMMERCE

BY

MR. YOGESH RAMDAS CHAVAN

(ROLL NO. 76)

UNDER GUIDENCE OF

PROF SMITA JADHAV

LAXMAN DEVRAM SONAWANE COLLEGE

OPP.FIRE STATION, DURGADI KILLA, BHIWANDI-MURBAD

ROAD WADEGHAR, KALYAN (W) – 421 301

DEC 2021

1
 LAXMAN DEVRAM SONAWANE COLLEGE

OPP FIRE STATION NEAR DURGADI KILLA, BHIWANDI- MURBAD

ROAD, WADEGHAR, KALYAN (W) 421301

CERTIFICATE
This is certify that MR. YOGESH RAMDAS CHAVAN has worked and duly

Completed his project work for the degree of master in commerce under the

Faculty of commerce in the subject of Advance Accountancy and his project

is

Entitle, “Effect OF COVID- 19 ON TRADE AND BUSINESS” under my supervision.

I further certified that the entire work has been done by the learner under

My guidance and that no part of it has been submitted previously for

any degree or diploma of any university.

It is his own work and facts reported by his personal findings and investigation.

External examiner internal guide

Prof. SMITA JADHAV

Date of submission: / / 2022

2
 DECLARATION BY LEARNER

I the undersigned MR YOGESH RAMDAS CHAVAN here by, declare that the
work Embodied in this project work title, “EFFECT OF COVID 19 ON TRADE
AND BUSINESS “, forms my own contribution to the research work carried out under the

Guidance of PROF. SMITA JADHAV is a result of my own research work and has been
previously submitted to any other degree/diploma to this or any other university.

Whenever reference has been made to previous work of others, it has been clearly indicated as
such and included in the bibliography.

I, here by further declare that all information of the documents has been obtained and presented
in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct.

MR. AMIT RAMAN JAWALIYA

Certified by

PROF. SMITA JADHAV

3
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

To list who all have helped me is difficult because they are so numerous and he

Depth is so enormous.

I would like to acknowledge the following as being idealistic channels and fresh

dimensions in the completion of this project.

I take this opportunity to thank my PRINCIPLE, PROF. AANIE ANTONY for providing the

Necessary facilities required for completion of this project.

I take this opportunity to thank our coordinator PROF. KESAR LALCHANDANI, for her
moral support and guidance.

I would also like to express my sincere gratitude to words my project guide. PROF. SMITA
JADHAV whose guidance and care made the project successful.

I would like to thank my college library for having provided various reference books and
magazines related to my projects.

Lastly I would like to thank each and every person who directly or indirectly helped me in
he completion of the projects especially my parents and peers who supported me throughout
my project.

4
 Chapter -1

Introduction to COVID 19 effect to Trade and business

5
Chapter – 2 Research methodology

6
Chapter -3 Literature review

7
Chapter -4 Data analysis,

Interpretation & presentation

8
Chapter – 5 Conclusion and
suggestion

9
Chapter – 6 references

10
Questionnaire

11
 INDEX
Chapter no content Page
no
Chapter no 1 Introduction
1.1 background of COVID 19 13-15
1.2 history of COVID 19 16-17
1.3 variant of COVID 19 18-23
1.4 pandemic 24-30
1.5 lockdown 31-38
1.6 effect of COVID 19 on trade 39-55
and business
1.7 employment, sales and cash flow 56-60
chapter no 2 research methodology
2.1 objectives 61
2.2 scope of a study 61
2.3limitation of the study 61
2.4 need and significance of study 62
2.5 selection of the problem 62
2.6 sample size 62
2.7data collection 63
Chapter no 3 Literature review 64-65

Chapter no 4 Data analysis, interpretation, and

presentation 66-80
Chapter no 5 Conclusion and suggestion
5.1 findings 81
5.2 conclusion 81
5.3 suggestion 82
Chapter no 6 Reference
6.1 website 83

12
 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO COVID 19 AND THEIR EFFECT
ON TRADE AND BUSINESS

1.1 background of COVID 19:

the first known infection from ARS-CoV-2 were discover in Wuhan, china. The original
source of viral transmission to human remains unclear, as does whether the virus become
pathogenic before or after the spillover event. SARS-CoV2 originated in bats. SArs-CoV2
made he jump to human at one of Wuhan’s open air wet markets. They are where customers
buy fresh meat and fish, including animals that are killed on the spot.
Some wet markets sell wild or banned species like cobras, wild boars, and raccoon dogs.
Crowded condition can let viruses from different animals swap genres. Sometimes the virus
changes so much it can start to infect and spread among people.
Still, the Wuhan market didn’t sell bats at the time of the outbreak. That’s why early
suspicion also fall pangolins, also called scaly anteaters, which are sold illegally in some
markets in china. Some CORONAVIRUS that infect pangolins are similar to SARS-CoV2
As SARS-CoV2 spread both inside and outside china, it infected people who have had no
direct contact with animals. that meant the virus is transmitted from one human to another
it’s now spreading in the U.S and around the globe, meaning on the CORONAVIRUS. This
growing worldwide transmission is what is now a pandemic
Within a month or a few months of The world health organization (WHO) declaring COVID
-19 to be a globe public. Health emergency of a international concern on 30 January
2020(WHO 2020), governments in many countries as well as the vulnerable groups of
micro, small and medium enterprise despite the announcement of large –scale rapidly over
the whole world. In June 2020, the ADB 92020b) and the international that they had released
less than two months previously, initially, government support tended to treat all micro,
small, medium business almost equally. Since there are far from homogeneous, however,
there was an expectation that a certain differentiate.

 SIGN AND SYMPTOM

Symptom of COVID 19 are variable, ranging from mild symptom to severe illness. Common
symptom include headache, loss of smell and taste, nasal congestion and runny nose, cough,
muscle pain, sore throat, fever, diarrhea, and breathing difficulties. People with the same
infection may have different symptoms, and their symptoms may change over time. Three
common clusters of symptoms have been identified: one respiratory symptom cluster with
cough, sputum, shortness of breath, and fever: a musculoskeletal symptom cluster with

13
muscle and joint pain, headache, and fatigue: a cluster of digestive symptoms with
abdominal pain, vomiting, and diarrhea. In people without prior ear, nose, and throat
disorders loss of taste combined with loss of smell is associated with COVID-19 and is
reported in as nearly 88% of cases
Of people who shows symptom, 81 % developed only mild to moderate symptoms. While
14% develop sever symptoms and 5% of patients suffer critical symptoms. At least a third
of the people who are infected with the virus do not develop noticeable symptoms at any
point in time. These asymptomatic carriers tend not to get tested and can spread the dieses.
Other infected people will develop symptoms later called pre- symptomatic or have very
mild symptoms and can also spread the virus.
As is common with infection, there is a delay between the moment a person becomes
infected and the appearance of the first symptom. The medium delay for COVID-19 is four
to five days. Most symptomatic people experience symptoms within two to seven days after
exposure, and almost all will experience at least one symptom within 12 days.
Most people recover from the acute phase of the disease. However, some people- over half of
a cohort of home –isolated young adults continued to experience a range of effect, such
condition called long COVID: long- term damage to organs has been observed. Multi- year
studies are underway to further investigate the long term effects of the disease

 CAUSE

The dieses is mainly transmitted via the respiratory route when people inhale droplets and
small airborne and particle that infected people exhale a s they breathe, talk, cough, sneeze,
or sing. Infected people are more likely to transmitted COVID-19 when they are physically
close. However, infection can occur over longer distance particularly indoors.
Infectivity can occur 1-3 days before the onset of symptoms. Infected persons can spread
the dieses even if they are pre- symptomatic or asymptomatic. Most commonly, the peak
viral load in upper respiratory tract samples o0ccurs close to the time of symptom onset and
declines after the first week after symptom begin. Current evidence suggests a duration of
viral shedding and the period of infectiousness of up to 10 days following symptoms onset
for person with mild to moderate COVID-19, and a up to 20 days for person with severe
COVID-19.
Infectious particles range in size from aerosols that remain suspended in the air for long
period of time to larger droplet that remain airborne or fall to the ground. Additionally,
COVID-19 research has redefined the traditional understanding of how respiratory viruses
are transmitted. The largest droplet of respiratory fluid do not travel far, and can be inhale
or land on mucous membranes on the eye, nose or mouth to infect. Aerosols are highest in
concentration when people are in close proximity, which leads to easier viral transmission
when people are physically close, but airborne transmission can occur at longer distance,

14
mainly in location shat are poorly ventilated. In this condition small particles can remain
suspended in the air for minutes to hours.
The number of the people generally infected by one infected person varies. as only 10 to 20%
of people responsible for disease spread. It often spreads in clusters, where infections can be
trace back to an index case or geographical location. Often in these instances, spreading
events occur, where many people are infected by one person.

15
1.2 HISTORY OF COVID-19

The virus is brought to be of natural animal origin, most likely trough spillover infection.
There are several theories about where the first case originate and investigation into the
origin of the pandemic are ongoing genetic estimates that SARS-CoV-2 arose in October on
November 2019. A genetic estimates algorithm analysis suggested that the virus may have
circulating Guangdong before Wuhan. Evidence suggest that it descends from
CORONAVIRUS that infected wild bats, and spread to humans through an intermediary
wildlife host. The possibility that the virus was accidentally released from a laboratory is
also under increasingly active consideration.
The first confirm human infection were in Wuhan. China study of the first 41 cases of
confirmed COVID- 19, published in JANUARY 2020 in the lancet, reported the earliest date
of onset of symptoms as 1DEcEMBER 2019. Officials publication from WHO reported the
earliest onset of symptoms as 8 DECEMBER 2019. Human to human transmission was
confirmed by the WHO and Chinese authorities by 20 JANUARY 2020. According to
official Chinese sources, these were mostly linked to the human seafood wholesale market,
which also sold live animals. In may 2020, George Gao, the director of the CDC, said animal
sample collected from the seafood market has tested negative for the virus, indicating that
the market was the site on an early super spreading event, but that it was not the site of the
intial outbreak. Traces of the virus have been founded in wastewater samples that were
collected in Milan and TURIN, ITLY, on 18 DECEMBER 2019
By DECEMBER 2019, the spread of infection was almost entirely driven by human to
human transmission. The number of CORONAVIRUS cases in HUBEI gradually increased,
reaching sixty by DECEMBER 20. And at 266 by 31 DECEMBER..on 24 DECEMBER,
WUHAN CENTRAL HOSPITAL sent a (BAL) sample from an unresolved clinical case to
sequencing company vision medicals. On 27 and 28 DECEMBER, vision medicals informed
the WUHAN central hospital and he Chinese CDC of the result of the test, showing a new
CORONAVIRUS. A pneumonia cluster of unknown cause was observed on 26
DECEMBER and treated by the doctor ZHANG JIXIAN in HUBEI PROVINCIAL
HOSPITAL, who informed the WUHAN JIAMGHAN CDC on 27 DECEMBER. On 30
DECEMBER, a test report addressed to WUHAN central hospital, from company capital bio
medical lab, started an erroneous positive result for SARC, causing a group of the doctors at
WUHAN central hospital to alert their colleagues and relevant hospital authorities of the
result. The WUHAN municipal health commission issued a notice to various medical
institution on the treatment of pneumonia of unknown cause that same evening. Eight of
these doctors, were later admonished by the police for spreading false rumors and another,
was reprimanded by her superior for raising the alarm.

16
The WUHAN municipal health commission made the first public announcement of a
pneumonia outbreak of unknown cause on 31 DECEMBER, confirming 27 cases enough to
trigger an investigation.
During the early stages of the outbreak, the numbers of cases doubled approximately every
seven and a half days. In early and mid-JANUARY 2020, the virus spread to other Chinese
provinces, helped by the Chinese new year migration and WUHAN being a transport hub
and major rail interchange. On 20 JANUARY, china reported 140 new cases in one day,
including two people in BEIJING and one in SHENZHEN. Later official data shows 6174
people had already developed symptoms by then, and more may have been infected. A report
in the lancet on 24 JANUARY indicated human transmission, strongly recommended
personal protective equipment foe health workers, and said testing for the virus is essential
due to its pandemic potential. On 30 JANUARY, the WHO declared that CORONAVIRUS a
public health emergency of international concern. By this time, the outbreak spread by a
factor of 100 to 200 times.
ITLY had its first confirmed cases on 31 JANUARY 2020, two tourist from china. ITLY
overlook china as the country with the most deaths on 19 march 2020. By 26 march the
united states had overtaken CHINA and ITLY with the highest number of confirm cases in
the world. Research on CORONAVIRUS genomes indicate the majority of COVID-19 cases
in new York came from European travelers, rather than directly from china or any other
ASIAN country. Retesting of prior samples found a person in FRANCE who had the virus
on 27 DECEMBER 2019, and a person in the united states who died from the disease on 6
FEBRUARY 2020.
RT-PCR testing of untreated wastewater samples from BRAZIL and ITLY have suggested
detection of SARS-CoV-2 as early as NOVEMBER and DECEMBER 2019, respectively,
but the method of such sewage studies have not been optimized, many have not been peer-
reviewed, details are often missing and there is a risk of false positive due to contamination
or if only one gene target is detected. A SEPTEMBER 2020 review journal article said, the
possibility that the COVID-19 infection had already spread to Europe at the end of last year
is now indicated by abundant, even if partially circumstantial, evidence, including
pneumonia case numbers and radiology in FRANCE and ITLY in NOVEMBER and
DECEMBER.
As of OCTOBER 2021, reported that it had estimated the worldwide total number of deaths
due to COVID-19 to have exceeded five millions.

17
1.3 variants of COVID-19

There are many variants of sever acute respiratory syndrome CORONAVIRUS 2 (SARS-
CoV-2), the virus that causes CORONAVIRUS dieses 2019 (COVID-19) some are
believed, or not have been started, to be of particular importance due to their potential for
increased transmissibility, increased virulence, or reduced effectiveness of vaccines them.
These variants Contributes to the continuation of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 may have resulted from recombination events between a
bat SARS like CORONAVIRUS and a pangolin CORONAVIRUS through cross-species
transmission.
The earliest available SARS-CoV-2 viral genomes were collected from patients in December
2019, and Chinese researchers compared these early genomes with bat and pangolin
CORONAVIRUS strain to estimate and ancestral human CORONAVIRUS type; was labeled
S and its dominant derived type was labeled L to reflects the mutants AMICO acid changes.
Independently, western researchers carried out similar analyses but labeled the ancestral type
A and the derive type B. the B type mutated into further type including into B.1, which is the
ancestor of the major global variants of concern, labeled in 2021 by the WHO as alpha, beta,
gamma, delta and omicron variants.

VARIANTS OF COVID -19

ALPHA

OMICRON BETA

DELT GAMMA
A

18
1 DELTA (VARIENT OF COVID 19)

The delta variant is a variant of SARS-CoV-2, the Virus that causes COVID 19. It was first
detected in INDIA in late 2020. The delta variant was named on 31 MAY 2021 and had spread
to over 179 countries by 22 NOVEMMBER 2021. the world health organization indicated in
JUNE 2021 that the delta variants is becoming the dominant strain globally.

It has mutations in the gene encoding the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein causing the substitution
T478K, P681R and L452R, which are known to affect transmissibility of the virus as well as
whether it can be neutralized by antibodies for previously circulating variants of the COVID-19
virus. It is through to be one of the most transmissible respiratory viruses known. In AUGUST
2021, public health England reported secondary attacked rate in household contracts of non-
travel or unknown cases for delta to be 10.8% vis-à-vis 10.2% for the alpha variants. The case
fatality rate for those 386,835 people with delta is 0.3%, where 46% of the cases and 6% of the
deaths are unvaccinated and below 50 years old. Immunity from previous recovery or COVID-19
vaccines are effective in preventing severe disease or hospitalization from infection with the
variant,

On 7 MAY 2021, PHE, change there classification of lineage B.1.617.2 from a variant under
investigation to variant of concern based on an assessment of transmissibility being at least
equivalent to B.1.17 (alpha variant) the UK sage using may data estimated a realistic possibility
of being 50% more transmissible. On 11 MAY 2021, the WHO also classified this lineage
VOC, and said that it shows evidence of higher transmissibility and reduced neutralization on
15v JUNE 2021, the centers for disease control and prevention declared delta a variant of
concern.

The variant is brought to be partly responsible for INDIA’S deadly second wave of the
pandemic beginning in FEBRUARY 2021. It later contributed to the third wave in FIJI, the
united kingdom and south Africa, and the WHO warned in July 2021 that it could have a similar
effect elsewhere in Europe and Africa, by late JULY 2021 that it also driven an increased in
daily infections in parts of ASIA, the UNITED STATES, AUSTRALIA, and new Zealand.

19
2 ALPHA (COVID-19 VARIANT )

the alpha variants also known as lineage B.1.1.7, is a variant of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that
causes COVID-19 . one of the several variants of concern, the variant is estimated to be 40-80%
more transmissible than the wild-type SARS-CoV-2 it was first detected in NOVEMBER 2020
from a sample taken SEPTEMBER in the united kingdom, and began to spread quickly by mid-
DECEMBER, around the same time as infections surged. This increased is through to be at least
partly because of one more mutations in the virus spike protein. The variant is also notable for
having more mutations than normally seen.

as JANUARY 2021, more than half of a genomic sequencing of SARS-CoV02 was carried out
in the UK this has given rise to questions as to how many other important variants may be
circulating around the world undetected.

On 2 FEBRUARY 2021, public health England reported that they had detected limited number
of B.1.1.7 VOC-202012/01 genomes with E484K mutation, which they dubbed variants of
concern 202102/02 (VOC-202102/02). One of the mutation (N501Y) is also present in beta
variant and gamma variant.

On 31 MAY 2021, the world health organization announced that the variant of concern would be
labeled alpha for use in public communication.

20
3 .GAMMA (COVID 19 VARIANT)

Gamma variants is also known as lineage. Is one of he variant of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that
causes COVID 19. This variant of SARS-CoV-2 has been named lineage P.1 and has 17
amino acid substitutions, ten of which in it spike protein, including these three designated to
be of particular concern: N501Y, E484K and K417T. this variant of SARS-CoV-2 was first
detected by the national institution of infectious diseases of JAPAN, on 6 JANUARY 2021
in four people who had arrived in Tokyo having visited amazons, brazil. Four days earlier. It
was subsequently declared to be circulation in brazil. Under the simplified naming schemed
proposed by the world health organization, P.1 has been labeled gamma variant, and is
currently considered a variant of concern.

Gamma caused widespread infection in early 2021 in the city of MANUAS, the capital of
amazons, although the city had already experience widespread infection in MAY2020, with a
study indicating high antibodies of SARS-CoV-2. A research article published in science
journal indicate that P.1 infected people have a greater chance to transmissibility and than
B.1.1.28 infected ones.

The gamma variant comprise the two distinct sub variants 28-AM-1 and 28-AM-2, which
both carry the K417T, E484K, N501Y mutations and which both developed independently of
each other within the same Brazilian amazons region.

Gamma is notably different from the zeta variant which is also circulating strongly in
BRAZIL. In particular, zeta only carries the E484K mutation and has neither of the other two
mutation of concern, N501Y and K417T.

21
4 . BETA ( COVID 19 VARIANT )

Beta variant, also known as lineage B.1.351, is a variant of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that
causes COVID-19 one of the several SARS-CoV-2 variants, believed to be of particular
importance, it was first detected in the nelson Mandela bay metropolitan area of eastern cape
province of south Africa in OCTOBER 2020, which was reported by the country’s health
department on 18 DECEMBER 2020. The analysis suggested this variants emerged in the
nelson Mandela bay area in JULY or AUGUST 2020.
The world health organization labeled the variant as beta variant, not to replace the scientific
name but as a name for the public to commonly refer to the WHO consider it to be a variant
of concern.
On a 4 JANUARY 2021, UK newspaper the telegraph reported that oxford immunologist sir
john bell believe there was a big question mark over the new south African variant potential
resistance to COVID-19 vaccine, raising fears that vaccines might not work as effectively on
that variant strain. The same day SHABIR MADHI, professor of vaccine logy at the
university of the Witwatersrand, commented to CBS news that it not a given that the new
beta variant (501.v2 variant) would be able to evade the vaccines, but that it should be
considered that they might out have the full efficacy. The additional mutations to the spike
protein in beta were raised as a concern factor by SIMON CLARKE, an associate professor
in cellular microbiology at the university of reading, in that they may make the virus less
susceptible to the immune response triggered by the vaccines, Lawrence young, a virologist
at WARWICK university, also noted that the variants multiple spike mutation could lead to
some escape from immune protection.
The E484K amino acid change, a receptor-binding-domaion9RBD) mutation, was reported
to be associate with escape from neutralizing antibodies which could adversely affect the
efficiency of spike protein-dependent COVID vaccines. He E484K spike mutation was
linked to a case of re infection with the beta variants of SARS-CoV-2 in BRAZIL, believed
by researchers to be the first such case of re infection involving this mutation. The possibility
of an alteration in referred to as an escape mutation from a monoclonal antibody with the
capability of neutralizing the spike protein variant of SARS-CoV-2. This suggest that
existing vaccines can and should be updated to counter the new strain without recourse trials.

22
5. OMICRON (COVID-19 VARIANT)

The omicron variant is a variant of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. It was
first reported to the world health organization (WHO) from south Africa on 24 NOVEMBER
2021, the WHO designated it was a variant of concern and named it after omicron, the
fifteenth letter in the GREEK alphabet.
The variant has an unusually large number of mutations, several of which are novel, and
significant number of which affect the spike protein targeted by most COVID-19 vaccines at
he time of discovering the omicron variant. This level of variation has led to concern
regarding its transmissibility, immune system evasion, and vaccine resistance. As a result,
variant was quickly designated as being of concern, and travel restriction were introduced
by several countries in an attempt to slow its international spread. However the variant has
spread to over 50 countries by 7 DECEMBER 2021.
The variant has a large number of mutations, some of which have concerned scientist. The
omicron variant has a 60 mutation compared to the original WUHAN variant 50 mutation.
The main antigenic target of antibodies generated by infections and of many vaccine widely
administered. Many of this mutation had not been observed in other strain. The variant is
characterized by 30 amino acid changes, three small deletions, and one small insertion in
the spike protein compared with the original virus, of which 15 are located in the receptor
binding domain. It also carries a number of changes and deletion in other genomic regions.
Additionally, the variant has three mutations at the cleavage site. The cleavage site
increases SARS-CoV-2 infectively.
At least one new mutation may have been acquired from one of the CORONAVIRUS that
causes the common cold (HCoV-229E) or the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), since
that particular genetic sequence is known to exist in both these viruses; south Africa likewise
has the world’s highest incidence of HIV infection, creating a high like hood of concurrent
infection.

23
1.4 PANDEMIC

COVID-19 symptoms range from none to life-threatening. Severe illness is more likely in elderly
patients and those with certain underlying medical conditions. COVID-19 is airborne, spread via
air
contaminated by microscopic particles. The risk of infection is highest among people in close
proximity, but can occur over longer distances, particularly indoors in poorly ventilated areas.
Transmission can also occur, albeit rarely, via contaminated surfaces or fluids. Infected persons
can
remain contagious for up to 20 days, and can spread the virus even without symptoms.
Vaccines have been approved and distributed in various countries. Mass vaccination
campaigns began
in December 2020. Other recommended preventive measures include social distancing, wearing
face
masks in public, ventilation/air-filtering, covering one's mouth when sneezing or coughing, hand
washing, disinfecting surfaces, and quarantining those who have been exposed or are
symptomatic.
Treatments focus on addressing symptoms, but work is underway to develop antiviral
medications.
Governmental interventions include travel restrictions, lockdowns, business closures, workplace
hazard controls, testing protocols, and tracing contacts of the infected.
The pandemic triggered severe social and economic disruption around the world, including
the largest global recession since the Great Depression. Widespread supply shortages were
caused by
panic buying, supply chain disruption, and food shortages. The resultant near-global
lockdowns saw an
unprecedented decrease in the emission of pollutants. Numerous educational institutions and
public
areas were partially or fully closed, and many events were cancelled or postponed.
Misinformation
circulated through social media and mass media, and political tensions intensified. The pandemic
has
raised issues of racial and geographic discrimination, health equity, and the balance between
public
health imperatives and individual rights.

 BACKGROUND

Although the exact origin of the virus is still unknown, the first known outbreak started in
Wuhan,
Hubei, China, in November 2019. Many early cases of COVID-19 were linked to people who
had visited

24
the Human Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan, but it is possible that human-to-human
transmission was happening before this. SARS-CoV-2 is a newly discovered virus that is closely
related to bat CORONAVIRUS, pangolin CORONAVIRUS, and SARS-CoV2.
The scientific consensus is that the virus is most likely of ZOONOTIC origin, from bats or
another
closely- related mammal. Despite this, the subject has generated extensive
speculation. The origin controversy heightened geopolitical divisions, notably between the
UNITED STATES and CHINA.

The earliest known infected person fell ill on 1 December 2019. That person did not have
visible connections with the later wet market cluster .However, an earlier case may have
occurred on 17 November. Two-thirds of the initial case cluster were linked with the market.
Molecular
clock analysis suggests that the index case is likely to have been infected between mid-October
and
mid November 2019.

 CASES

For country-level data, see:

COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory
Cases
271,501,910
Deaths
5,321,328
As of 15 December
2021 Africa
Asia
Europe
North America
Oceania
South America
Antarctica
Official case counts refer to the number of people who have been tested for COVID-19 and
whose test
has been confirmed positive according to official protocols. Many countries, early on, had
official policies to not test those with only mild symptoms. An analysis of the outbreak up to 23
January estimated that 86 percent of COVID-19 infections had not been detected, and that these
undocumented infections were the source for 79 percent of documented cases. Several other
studies claimed that total infections are considerably greater than reported cases.
On 9 April 2020, preliminary results found that in, the centre of a major infection cluster
in Germany, 15 percent of a population sample tested positive for antibodies. Screening
for COVID-19
in pregnant women in New York City, and blood donors in the Netherlands, found rates of
positive
antibody tests that indicated more infections than reported. SEROPREVALENCE-based
estimates
are conservative as some studies show that persons with mild symptoms do not have detectable

25
antibodies.
An analysis in early 2020 of cases by age in China indicated that a relatively low proportion of
cases
occurred in individuals under 20. It was not clear whether this was because young people were
less
likely to be infected, or less likely to develop symptoms and be tested. A retrospective cohort
study in China found that children and adults were just as likely to be infected.
Initial estimates of the basic reproduction number (R0) for COVID-19 in January were between
1.4 and
2.5 , but a subsequent analysis claimed that it may be about 5.7 (with a 95 percent confidence
interval of 3.8 to 8.9). R0 can vary across populations/circumstances and is not to be
confused with

the effective reproduction number (commonly just called R), which takes into account mitigation
efforts and herd immunity.
Semi-log plot of weekly new cases of COVID-19 in the world and the current top six countries
(mean with
deaths)

 Deaths

As of 15 December 2021, more than 5.32 million deaths had been attributed to COVID-19.
Official
deaths from COVID-19 generally refer to people who died after testing positive. Such counts
may
ignore deaths of people who die without a test. Conversely, deaths of people who had
underlying conditions may lead to over-counting. Comparisons of statistics for deaths for all
causes versus multi-year averages reflect excess mortality in many countries. These include
deaths due to healthcare capacity constraints and priorities.
Deceased in a refrigerated "mobile morgue. outside a hospital in Hackensack, New Jersey, U.S.
The first confirmed death was in Wuhan on 9 January 2020. The first reported death outside of
China occurred on 1 February 2020 in the Philippines, and the first reported death outside Asia
was
in the United States on 6 February 2020.
The time between symptom onset and death usually ranges from 6 to 41 days, typically about 14
days.[69] People at the greatest risk of mortality from COVID-19 are the elderly (age 65 years or
older)
and those with underlying conditions. The strongest risk factors for severe illness are obesity,
complications of diabetes, anxiety disorders, and the total number of conditions.
Multiple measures are used to quantify mortality. These numbers vary by region and over time,
influenced by testing volume, healthcare system quality, treatment options, government
response,[
time since the initial outbreak, and population characteristics, such as age, sex, and overall
health.
Countries such as Belgium include deaths from suspected cases, including those without a test,
thereby increasing counts.

26
The death-to-case ratio reflects the number of deaths attributed to COVID-19 divided by the
number
of diagnosed cases within a given time interval. Based on Johns Hopkins University statistics,
the
global death-to-case ratio is 1.96 percent (5,321,328 deaths for 271,501,910 cases) as of 15
December
2021.The number varies by region.
Semi-log plot of weekly deaths due to COVID-19 in the world and top six current countries
(mean with
cases)
COVID-19 deaths per 100 000 population from selected countries
Official death counts have been CRITICISED for underreporting the actual death toll, because
comparisons of death rates before and during the pandemic show an increase in deaths that is not
explained by COVID-19 deaths alone.[4] Using such data, estimates of the true number of deaths
from
COVID-19 worldwide have included a range from 9.5 to 18.6 million by The Economist, as well
as over
10.3 million by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation.

 REPORTING

On 24 March 2020, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
indicated the
WHO had provided two codes for COVID-19: U07.1 when confirmed by laboratory testing and
U07.2 for
clinically or epidemiological diagnosis where laboratory confirmation is inconclusive or not
available. The CDC noted that "Because laboratory test results are not typically reported on
death certificates in the US, [the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS)] is not planning to
implement U07.2 for mortality statistics" and that U07.1 would be used "If the death certificate
reports terms such as 'probable COVID-19' or 'likely COVID-19'." The CDC also noted "It Is
not likely that
NCHS will follow up on these cases" and while the "underlying cause depends upon what and
where
conditions are reported on the death certificate, ... the rules for coding and selection of the ...
cause of
death are expected to result in COVID–19 being the underlying cause more often than not.
On 16 April 2020, the WHO, in its formal publication of the two codes, U07.1 and U07.2,
"recognized that
in many countries detail as to the laboratory confirmation ... will not be reported recommended,
for mortality purposes only, to code COVID-19 provisionally to code U07.1 unless it is stated as
'probable' or 'suspected'."[80][81] It was also noted that the WHO "does not distinguish" between
infection by SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19.
Infection fatality ratio (IFR)
A crucial metric in assessing a disease is the infection fatality ratio (IFR), which is the
cumulative

27
number of deaths attributed to the disease divided by the cumulative number of infected
individuals
(including asymptomatic and undiagnosed infections). Epidemiologists frequently refer to
this metric as the 'infection fatality rate' to clarify that it is expressed in percentage points (not as
a
decimal). Other published studies refer to this metric as the 'infection fatality risk'.[88][89]
In November 2020, a review article in Nature reported estimates of population-weighted IFRs for
various countries, excluding deaths in elderly care facilities, and found a median range of 0.24%
to
1.49%.
Children and younger adults faced much lower IFRs (e.g., 0.002% at age 10 and 0.01% at age
25)
compared with higher IFRs for older adults (0.4% at age 55, 1.4% at age 65, 4.6% at age 75, and
15% at
age 85). These rates vary by a factor of ~10,000 across the age groups. For comparison the risk
for
middle-aged adults of a fatal COVID-19 infection is two orders of magnitude more likely than
the
annual risk of a fatal automobile accident and far more dangerous than seasonal influenza.
In December 2020, a systematic review and meta-analysis estimated that population-weighted
IFR
was 0.5% to 1% in some countries (France, Netherlands, New Zealand, and Portugal), 1% to 2%
in other
countries (Australia, England, Lithuania, and Spain), and about 2.5% in Italy; these estimates
included
fatalities in elderly care facilities. This study reported that most of the differences reflected
corresponding differences in the population's age structure and the age-specific pattern of
infections.
Case fatality ratio (CFR)
Another metric in assessing death rate is the case fatality ratio (CFR), which is the ratio of deaths
to diagnoses. This metric can be misleading because of the delay between symptom onset and
death
and because testing focuses on symptomatic individuals (and particularly on those manifesting
more
severe symptoms). On 4 August 2020, WHO indicated "at this early stage of the pandemic, most
estimates of fatality ratios have been based on cases detected through surveillance and calculated
using crude methods, giving rise to widely variable estimates of CFR by country – from less than
0.1%
to over 25%.

 Disease
Symptoms of COVID-19 are variable, ranging from mild symptoms to severe illness. Common
symptoms include headache, loss of smell and taste, nasal congestion and runny nose, cough,
muscle

28
pain, sore throat, fever, diarrhea, and breathing difficulties. People with the same infection may
have different symptoms, and their symptoms may change over time. Three common clusters
of symptoms have been identified: one respiratory symptom cluster with cough, sputum,
shortness of
breath, and fever; a musculoskeletal symptom cluster with muscle and joint pain, headache,
and fatigue; a cluster of digestive symptoms with abdominal pain, vomiting, and diarrhea. In
people without prior ear, nose, and throat disorders, loss of taste combined with loss of smell is
associated
with COVID-19 and is reported in as many as 88% of cases.
Of people who show symptoms, 81% develop only mild to moderate symptoms (up to mild
pneumonia),
while 14% develop severe symptoms
and 5% of patients suffer critical symptoms (respiratory failure, shock, or MULTIORGAN
dysfunction).
At least a third of the people who are infected with the virus do not develop noticeable
symptoms at
any point in time. These asymptomatic carriers tend not to get tested and can spread the
disease. Other infected people will develop symptoms later, called "pre-symptomatic",
or have very mild symptoms and can also spread the virus.
As is common with infections, there is a delay between the moment a person first becomes
infected
and the appearance of the first symptoms. The median delay for COVID-19 is four to five days.
Most
symptomatic people experience symptoms within two to seven days after exposure, and almost
all will
experience at least one symptom within 12 days
Most people recover from the acute phase of the disease. However, some people – over half of a
cohort
of home-isolated young adults– continue to experience a range of effects, such as fatigue, for
months after recovery, a condition called long COVID; long-term damage to organs has
been observed.
Multi-year studies are underway to further investigate the long-term effects of the
disease. Transmission
Symptoms of COVID-19
The disease is mainly transmitted via the respiratory route when people inhale droplets and small
airborne particles (that form an aerosol) that infected people exhale as they breathe, talk, cough,
sneeze, or sing. Infected people are more likely to transmit COVID-19 when they are
physically close. However, infection can occur over longer distances, particularly indoors.
Infectivity can occur 1-3 days before the onset of symptoms. Infected persons can spread the
disease even if they are pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic .Most commonly, the peak viral load
in
upper respiratory tract samples occurs close to the time of symptom onset and declines after the
first week after symptoms begin. Current evidence suggests a duration of viral shedding and
the period of infectiousness of up to 10 days following symptom onset for persons with mild to
moderate
COVID-19,

29
persons.
Infectious particles range in size from aerosols that remain suspended in the air for long periods
of
time to larger droplets that remain airborne or fall to the ground. Additionally, COVID-
19 research has redefined the traditional understanding of how respiratory viruses are
transmitted. The largest droplets of respiratory fluid do not travel far, and can be inhaled or
land on mucous membranes on the eyes, nose, or mouth to infect. Aerosols are highest in
concentration when people are in close proximity, which leads to easier viral transmission
when people are physically close, but airborne transmission can occur at longer distances,
mainly
in locations that are poorly ventilated; in those conditions small particles can remain suspended
in
the air for minutes to hours.
The number of people generally infected by one infected person varies; as only 10 to 20% of
people
are responsible for the disease's spread. It often spreads in clusters, where infections can be
The respiratory route of spread of COVID-19, encompassing larger droplets and aerosols.
traced back to an index case or geographical location. Often in these instances, super
spreading events occur, where many people are infected by one person.

 CAUSE

SARS-CoV-2 belongs to the broad family of viruses known as CORONAVIRUS It is a positive-

sense
single-stranded RNA virus, with a single linear RNA segment. CORONAVIRUS infect humans,
other mammals, including livestock and companion animals, and avian species.[124] Human
CORONAVIRUS are capable of causing illnesses ranging from the common cold to more severe
diseases
such as Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS, fatality rate ~34%). SARS-CoV-2 is the
seventh known
CORONAVIRUS to infect people, after 229E, NL63, OC43, HKU1, MERS-CoV-2, and the
original SARS-CoV-2
Viral genetic sequence data can provide critical information about whether viruses separated
by time
and space are likely to be epidemiologically linked. With a sufficient number of sequenced
genomes, it is possible to reconstruct a PHYLOGENETIC tree of the mutation history of a
family of
virus. By 12 January 2020, five genomes of SARS-CoV-2 had been isolated from Wuhan and
reported
by the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CCDC) and other institutions; the
number of genomes increased to 42 by 30 January 2020.[129] A PHYLOGENETIC analysis of
those samples
showed they were "highly related with at most seven mutations relative to a common ancestor",
implying that the first human infection occurred in November or December 2019.Examination of
the topology of the PHYLOGENETIC tree at the start of the pandemic also found high
similarities

30
between human isolates. As of 21 August 2021, 3,422 SARS,CoV2 genomes, belonging to 19
strains,

1.5 LOCKDOWN

On the evening of 24 March 2020, the Government of India ordered a nationwide lockdown for
21 days, limiting movement of the entire 1.38 billion (138 CRORE) population of India as a
preventive measure against the COVID-19 pandemic in India. It was ordered after a 14-hour
voluntary public curfew on 22 March, followed by enforcement of a series of regulations in the
countries' COVID-19 affected region. The lockdown was placed when the number of confirmed
positive CORONAVIRUS cases in India was approximately 500.Upon its announcement, a
mass movement people across the country was described as the largest since the partition of
India in 1947. Observers stated that the lockdown had slowed the growth rate of the pandemic
by 6 April to a rate of doubling every six days, and by 18 April, to a rate of doubling every eight
days. As the end of the first lockdown period approached, state governments and other advisory
committees recommended extending the lockdown. The governments
of ODISHA and Punjab extended the state lockdowns to 1 May. Maharashtra, Karnataka, West
Bengal and TELANGANA followed suit. On 14 April, Prime minister NARENDRA MODI
extended the nationwide lockdown until 3 May, on written recommendation of governors and
lieutenant governors of all the states, with a conditional relaxations after 20 April for the regions
where the spread had been contained or was minimal.
On 1 May, the Government of India extended the nationwide lockdown further by two weeks
until 17 May. The Government divided all the districts into three zones based on the spread of
the virus—green, red, and orange—with relaxations applied accordingly. On 17 May, the
lockdown was further extended till 31 May by the National Disaster Management Authority.
On 30 May, it was announced that lockdown restrictions were to be lifted from then onwards,
while the ongoing lockdown would be further extended till 30 June for only the containment
zones. Services would be resumed in a phased manner starting from 8 June. It was termed as
"Unlock 1.0". MODI later clarified that the lockdown phase in the country was over and that
'unlock' had already begun.[
The second phase of unlock, Unlock 2.0, was announced for the period of 1 to 31 July, with
more ease in restrictions. Unlock 3.0 was announced for August. Similarly, Unlock 4.0 was
announced for September [and Unlock 5.0 for the month of OCTOBER. In the same way,
Unlock 6.0 was announced for the month of NOVEMBER, Unlock 7.0 was announced for the
month of December.
In 2021, due to the largest wave of infection in the country, several state governments like Uttar
Pradesh, [Delhi[etc. have announced complete lockdowns in April 2021.
The Government of India confirmed India's first case of COVID-19 on 30 January 2020 in the
state of Kerala, when a university student from Wuhan travelled back to the state As the number
of confirmed COVID-19 positive cases closed 500, MODI on 19 March, asked all citizens to
observe 'JANATA Curfew' (people's curfew) on Sunday, 22 March At the end of the curfew,
MODI stated: "JANATA Curfew is just the beginning of a long battle against COVID-19".
Following this, while addressing the nation second time on the 24 March, he announced the

31
nationwide lockdown from midnight of that day, for a period of 21 days. He said that the only
solution to control the spread of CORONAVIRUS was to break the cycle of transmission
through social distancing. He also added that the lockdown would be enforced more strictly than
the JANATA Curfew.

 JANATA Curfew

The JANATA Curfew (transl. People's curfew) was a 14-hour curfew on 22 March 2020
initiated by NARENDRA MODI, the Prime Minister of India (from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m.).[Every
person was asked to obey the curfew, with exceptions for people of "essential services" such as
police, medical services, media, home delivery professionals, and firefighters. At 5 p.m. that
day, all citizens were asked to stand in their doorways, balconies or windows, and clap their
hands or ring their bells in appreciation for the professionals delivering these essential services.
People belonging to National Cadet Corps and National Service Scheme were to enforce the
curfew in the country. The Prime Minister also urged the youth to inform 10 others about
JANATA Curfew and encourage everyone to observe the curfew. The lockdown restricted
people from stepping out of their homes. All transport services–road, air and rail–were
suspended, with exceptions for transportation of essential goods, fire, police and emergency
services. Educational institutions, industrial establishments and hospitality services were also
suspended. Services such as food shops, banks and ATMs, petrol pumps, other essentials and
their manufacturing are exempted. The Home Ministry stated that anyone who fails to follow the
restrictions can face up to a year in jail.

 Lockdown in 2020

Phase 1 (24 March – 14

April)
On 24 March, the first day of the lockdown, nearly all services and factories were suspended.
[45]
People were hurrying to stock essentials in some parts. Arrests across the states were
made for violating norms of lockdown such as venturing out for no emergency, opening
businesses and also home quarantine violations. The government held meetings with e-
commerce websites and vendors to ensure a seamless supply of essential goods across the nation
during the lockdown period. Several states announced relief funds for the poor and affected
people while the central government was final a stimulus package.
On 26 March, finance minister NIRMALA SITHARAMAN announced a ₹170,000
CRORE (US$23 billion) stimulus package to help those affected by the lockdown. The package
was aimed to provide food security measures for poor households through direct cash transfers,
free cereal and cooking gas for three months. It also provided insurance coverage for medical
personnel.
On 27 March, the Reserve Bank of India announced a slew of measures to help mitigate the
economic impacts of the lockdown.
32
Prior to the announcement of the nationwide lockdown, on 22 March, the government had
announced that the Indian Railways would suspend passenger operations through 31 March. The
national rail network has maintained its freight operations during the lockdown, to transport
essential goods. On 29 March, the Indian Railways announced that it would start services for
special parcel trains to transport essential goods, in addition to the regular freight service. The
national rail operator also announced plans to convert coaches into isolation wards for patients
of COVID-19. This has been described as the first time in 167 years that India's rail network had
been suspended, although there was also a strike in 1974.
Lamp lighting observed on 5 April 2020 during lockdown
On 5 April, citizens all over India cheered and showed solidarity with the health workers, police,
and all those fighting the disease by switching off the electric lights at home for 9 minutes
from 9:00 p.m. to 9:09 p.m. and observed lighting DIYA, candle; and flashing torchlight and
mobile flashlight.
As the end of the initial lockdown period came near, many state governments expressed their
decision to extend it till the end of April. Among them were ODISHA,PUNJAB, Maharashtra,
Karnataka with some relaxations, West Bengal and TELANGANA.
Towards the end of the initial period, the rate of growth of COVID infections in India had
significantly slowed, from a rate of doubling every three days before the lockdown to one of
doubling every eight days on 18 April.

 Phase 2 (15 April – 3 May)

On 14 April, PM MODI extended the nationwide lockdown till 5 May, with a conditional
relaxation promised after 20 April for the regions where the spread had been contained by then.
He said that every town, every police station area and every state would be carefully evaluated to
see if it had contained the spread. The areas that were able to do so would be released from the
lockdown on 20 April. If any new cases emerged in those areas, lockdown could be re imposed.
On 16 April, lockdown areas were classified as "red zone", indicating the presence of infection
hotspots, "orange zone" indicating some infection, and "green zone" with no infections.
The government also announced certain relaxations from 20 April, allowing agricultural
businesses, including dairy, aquaculture, and plantations, as well as shops selling farming
supplies, to open. Public works programs were also allowed to reopen with instructions to
maintain social distancing. Cargo vehicles, including trucks, trains, and planes, would run. Banks
and government CENTRES distributing benefits would open as well.
On 25 April, small retail shops were allowed to open with half the staff. Again social distancing
norms were to be followed.
On 29 April, The Ministry of Home Affairs issued guidelines for the states to allow inter-state
movement of the stranded persons. States have been asked to designate nodal authorities and
form protocols to receive and send such persons. States have also been asked to screen the
people, quarantine them, and do periodic health checkups.

33
  Phase 3 (4–17 May)

On 1 May, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the Government of India further extended
the lockdown period to two weeks beyond 4 May, with some relaxations. The country has been
split into 3 zones: red zones (130 districts), orange zones (284 districts), and green zones (320
districts). Red zones are those with high CORONAVIRUS cases and a high doubling rate, orange
zones are those with comparatively fewer cases than red zone and green zones are those without
any cases in the past 21 days. Normal movement is permitted in green zones with buses limited
to 50 percent capacity. Orange zones would allow only private and hired vehicles but no public
transportation. The red zones would remain under lockdown. The zone classification would be
revised once a week.

 Phase 4 (18–31 May)

On 17 May, the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) and the Ministry of Home
Affairs (MHA) extended the lockdown for a period for two weeks beyond 18 May, with
additional relaxations. Unlike the previous extensions, states were given a larger say in the
demarcation of Green, Orange and Red zones and the implementation roadmap. Red zones were
further divided into to containment and buffer zones. The local bodies were given the authority
to demarcate containment and buffer zones.

 UNLOCK

The MHA issued fresh guidelines for June, stating that the phases of reopening would "have an
economic focus". Lockdown restrictions were only to be imposed in containment zones, while
activities were permitted in other zones in a phased manner. This first phase of reopening was
termed "Unlock 1.0"[14] and permitted shopping malls, religious places, hotels, and restaurants to
reopen from 8 June. Large gatherings were still banned, but there were no restrictions on
interstate travel. Night curfews were in effect from 9 p.m. to 5 a.m. in all areas and state
governments were allowed to impose suitable restrictions on all activities.
In future phases of reopening, further activities are to be permitted. In Phase II, all educational
institutions are scheduled to reopen in July, pending consultations with state governments. In
Phase III, easing of restrictions on international air travel, operation of metros, and recreational
activities (swimming pools, gymnasiums, theatres, entertainment parks, bars, auditoriums, and
assembly halls) would be decided upon in August.

 Unlock 2.0 (1–31 July)

34
Phase II of Unlock began on 1 July under the guidelines and instructions of the MHA and the
NDMA. Lockdown measures were only imposed in containment zones. In all other areas, most
activities were permitted. Night curfews were in effect from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. in all areas. State
governments were allowed to put suitable restrictions on all activities, but state borders remained
open to all. Inter- and intrastate travel was permitted. Limited international travel was permitted
as part of the VANDE BHARAT MISSION. Shops were permitted to allow more than five
persons at a time. Educational institutions, metros, recreational activities remained closed till 31
July. Only essential activities were permitted in containment zones while maintaining strict
parameter control and "intensive contact tracing, house-to-house surveillance, and other clinical
interventions". Further guidelines regarding usage of AAROGYA SETU and masks were
reiterated.

 Unlock 3.0 (1–31 August)

Unlock 3.0 for August 2020 removed night curfews and permitted gymnasiums and yoga centre
to reopen from 5 August. Educational institutions would remain closed till 31 August. All inter-
and intrastate travel and transportation are permitted. Independence Day celebrations are
permitted with social distancing. Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu imposed a lockdown for the
whole month, while West Bengal imposed lockdowns twice a week.

 Unlock 4.0 (1–30 September)

On 29 August 2020, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued guidelines for activities permitted in
Unlock 4.0. It said that "Lockdown shall remain in force in the Containment Zones till 30th
September 2020". Outside the containment zone, however, some activities were given
permission. Metro was allowed to be reopened in a graded manner from 7 September. Marriage
functions with gatherings of up to 50 people and funereal/last rites ceremonies with up to 20
people were permitted. Religious, entertainment, political, sports, academic functions and
gatherings of up to 100 people were allowed. Face masks were made compulsory in public
places, workplaces and during transport.

 Unlock 5.0 (1–31 October)

On 30 September 2020, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued guidelines for activities permitted
in Unlock 5.0. For schools it has a preference for online learning if possible, but States and
Union Territories will be able to make those decisions from 15 October, in a graded manner.
Lockdown shall remain in force strictly in the Containment Zones till 30 November 2020.Also,
swimming pools being used for training of sportsperson would be allowed to open. Cinema
halls, that had remained close all this while, could finally be opened from 15 October 2020,
with a 50% of their seating capacity. On 3 November the Government of Kerala opened its
tourism

35
sector by reopening hill stations, beaches, national park, and inter-state public transport
movement
The Government Of India has decided to open all educational institutions by January 2021
including schools and colleges and universities across India. The Government of Kerala has
decided to open its school from December 2020.

 Unlock 6.0 (1–30 November)

On 27 October 2020, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued guidelines for activities permitted in
Unlock 6.0. The Ministry of Home Affairs did not make any new changes to the existing Unlock
5.0 guidelines in its latest instructions for another set of unlocking and said that they would
continue to be implemented in the month of November too. Also, a handful of states have
allowed opening up of more activities outside containment zones and announced partial
reopening of schools. Lockdown has been enforced time and again in spite of attempts to
permanently move towards an unlock phase. The government of India has extended the ban
on scheduled international flights till January 31.

 Lockdown in 2021

In February end 2021, India got hit by the largest COVID wave. It is cited that people started
becoming careless, not wearing masks and not following social distancing, around November-
April. This wave caused a rapid surge in cases and deaths. Cases started to rise by March
2021, resulting in state-wide lockdowns. In Maharashtra there were total 4 phases of
lockdowns from April to June.

 ril 5- 15 June 2021 (Lockdown Phase)

When cases rapidly increased in Maharashtra, CM UDDHAV warned people on March 28, 2021
to imposed complete lockdown and night curfew was imposed. Schools and offices remained
shut. On 4 April 2021 Maharashtra CM UDDHAV Thackeray announced a lockdown till April
30. On 5 April 2021 everything began to close due to rise in COVID-19 second wave. Only
online deliveries were free at this stage. Films like SOORYAVANSHI, BUNTY AUR
BABLI 2 got postponed due to COVID-19's 2nd Wave.
Several States And UTs Like Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala, Rajasthan, Bihar, NCT Of Delhi,
Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, ODISHA, JHARKHAND, CHHATTISGARH, J&K,
LADAKH, GOA, , MIZORAM MEGHALAYA, WEST BENGAL, UTTARAKHAND,
PUDUCHERRY, TELANGANA, SIKKIM and HIMACHAL PRADESH imposed complete
Lockdown whereas some like PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH, GUJARAT, ANDHRA PRADESH,

36
ASSAM, ARUNACHAL PRADESH and NAGALAND Imposed Partial Lockdown and Major
Restrictions.
From 15 June 2021, Many States started lifting lockdowns and restrictions and moved in Unlock
phase.

 Impact

Food delivery services were banned by several state governments despite the central
government's approval. Thousands of people emigrated out of major Indian cities, as they
became jobless after the lockdown. Following the lockdown, India's electricity demand fell down
to a five-month low on 28 March 2020.Many states were keen on opening up liquor shops during
the lockdown which was finally allowed in the 3rd phase beginning on 4 May. Reports of a surge
in illicit liquor sales and most importantly, drying up of revenue from liquor sales was the main
stimulation.
Due to the lockdown, more than 350 deaths were reported as of 10 May, with reasons ranging
from starvation, suicides, exhaustion, road and rail accidents, police brutality and denial of timely
medical care. Among the reported deaths.

 Economic Impact

India had already been experiencing a prolonged economic slowdown. The GDP growth rate had
fallen from 8.2% in January–March 2018 to 3.1% in January–March 2020.
In the first quarter of the financial year 2020-2021, this number went into negative. The GDP
growth rate for April–June 2020 was -23.9%, which happened to be the worst ever in
history. Crucial parameters like manufacturing, construction, trade, hotel industry saw a decline
and slid into negative. Manufacturing growth at -39.3%, Mining growth at -23.3%, Construction
growth at -50%, Trade & hotel industry growth at -47%.

 Migrant workers

With factories and workplaces shut down, millions of migrant workers had to deal with the loss
of income, food shortages and uncertainty about their future Following this, many of them and
their families went hungry. While government schemes ensured that the poor would get
additional rations due to the lockdown, the distribution system failed to be effective.
With no work and no money, thousands of migrant workers were seen walking or bicycling
hundreds of KILOMETRES to go back to their native villages. Many were arrested for violating
the lockdown and some died of exhaustion or in accidents on the roads.

37
On 29 March 2020, the government ordered landlords to not demand rent and employers to pay
wages without deduction. It also announced that those who violated the lockdown were to be
sent to government-run quarantine facilities for 14 days.
In its report to the Supreme Court of India on 31 March, the central government stated that the
migrant workers, apprehensive about their survival, moved in the panic created by fake news that
the lockdown would last for more than three months.
In late March, the Uttar Pradesh government decided to arrange buses at Delhi's ANAND
VIHAR bus station to take the migrants back to their villages for free. Migrants across the
country remained stranded till the last week of April, when the state governments were finally
permitted by the central government to operate buses, but not trains.
On 1 May 2020, the central government allowed the Indian Railways to launch "SHRAMIK
Special" trains for the migrant workers and others stranded. Due to lack of coordination between
originating states and railways, reports were claiming that migrants were being charged for the
train tickets. The government faced criticism from the opposition. The Railways later clarified
that it was bearing 85% of the total cost of running and the rest 15% which makes up the ticket
fare was being borne by the originating states.
Despite the launching of special trains and buses by the government, the migrant workers chose
to either travel together in large groups. They did not wait their turn to board the government-
arranged transport, mainly due to starvation and eagerness to reach their homes soon.
Additionally, they felt that going back to their hometowns, they could return to farming and take
up small jobs under the MNREGA.
On 26 May 2020, the Supreme Court admitted that the problems of the migrants had still not
been solved and that there had been "inadequacies and certain lapses" on the part of the
governments. It thus ordered the Centre and States to provide free food, shelter, and transport to
stranded migrant workers.

 Food supply chain

The order issued by the Home Ministry on 24 March allowed the functioning of shops
dealing with food items as well as the manufacturing units and transportation of "essential
goods".
However, the lack of clarity on "essential goods" meant that the policemen on the streets stopped
workers going to factories and the trucks carrying food items. Food industries also faced
shortages of LABOUR because the workers were unable to reach workplaces and the factory
managers faced the fear of legal action. All these factors combined to result in shortages and a
rise in the prices of food items. By the first week of April, essential industries such as growing,
harvesting, and food deliveries were allowed to operate.

 Relief
On 26 March 2020, the Indian government announced a relief package of $22.6 billion to assist
the poor population hit economically by the COVID-19 pandemic. The plan was to benefit the
migrant workers through cash transfers and initiatives for food security. However, on 9 April

38
2020, economists and activists argued that a significant proportion of the affected population
was unable to avail the facilities. Only those registered with the federal food welfare scheme
were able to secure benefits.
According to a Government of India report filed with the Supreme Court of India, as of 7 April,
state governments operated 22,567 relief camps for stranded migrant workers, of which 15,541
camps (amounting to 68% of all) were operated by Kerala, 1,135 camps by Maharashtra, 178
camps by Tamil Nadu and smaller numbers by other states. Non-governmental
organizations were operating 3,909 camps.
On 12 May 2020, NARENDRA MODI announced that the government would provide 20 trillion
rupees ($266 billion) in support package in fiscal and monetary measures to support the
economy.

39
1.6 EFFECT OF COVID 19 ON TRADE AND BUSINESS

 EFFECT OF COVID 19 ON TRADE

The COVID-19 pandemic has drastically affected lives and livelihoods. In the process, it has also
disrupted economic activities throughout the world. In particular, worldwide merchandise trade
flows decreased by 7% in 2020. There are several dimensions to the pandemic that are likely to
affect international trade: its direct health impact and associated behavior changes; the
consequences of governments’ actions to prevent the spread of the virus; and the impact of the
pandemic in third countries.

Although it seems intuitive to expect negative trade effects due to the pandemic, at the country
level the effect could go in either direction. As Baldwin (2020) pointed out at its onset, the
pandemic delivered a shock from both the supply and demand sides. Since both are negative, the
resulting impact on a country’s import demand – defined as the difference between its domestic
demand and domestic supply – is a priori ambiguous. The repercussions of the pandemic on
other trading partners of a country, and on its own demand for imports from a specific country,
are also ambiguous, depending on how third-country demand and supply factors are affected.

In a newspaper (Liu et al. 2021), we resolve these ambiguities and provide what we believe
are the first estimates of how each of these channels affected international trade flows in 2020,
viewed through their impact on imports from China. Specifically, we estimate how COVID-19
incidence and lockdown restrictions, within a country and on its trading partners, affected the
monthly year-over-year growth of imports from China for all destinations to which China
exported in 2019–2020, at the product (HS 6-digit) level.

One advantage of using China as a ‘hub’ is that China’s monthly trade data up to December
2020 is already available. To the best of our knowledge, this makes our analysis the first to
evaluate the trade effects of the pandemic for 2020 as a whole. Another advantage is that China
has trade relationships with every other economy and is the largest exporter in the world.
Furthermore, China suffered the most from COVID-19 in the first quarter of 2020, when the rest
of the world was only starting to experience the consequences of the virus. From the second
quarter onwards, which is when our variables of interest start to vary more significantly, the
situation reversed, and China’s economy recovered swiftly, growing 2.3% in 2020. Thus, in the
more relevant period for our estimation, between April and December, the main COVID-related
impediments of trade with China stemmed mostly from the pandemic’s influence on China’s
trading partners. This avoids mixing pandemic-related factors in exporting and importing
countries.

 THE AVERAGE TRADE EFFECTS OF THE PANDEMIC

40
We find that the direct effects of COVID-19 incidence (expressed by the number of deaths per
capita) and of COVID-induced government measures (expressed by an index of the stringency
of lockdowns)1 are clearly negative, indicating that the negative own-demand effect on
countries’ imports from China prevails over the negative own-supply effect. As Table 1 shows,
relative to pre-pandemic conditions, a country with the highest level of deaths per thousand
people in a month in our sample (Slovenia in December 2020) would experience a reduction of
13% in imports from China for that month. Similarly, moving from no lockdowns to the
maximum level of lockdown stringency in the sample (Honduras in April and May; the
Philippines in April) would generate a reduction of 17.6% in imports from China. This reveals
that government measures to curb economic activities tend to have a larger effect on a country’s
imports than the direct health and behavioral impacts of the pandemic. If we consider an increase
of one standard deviation in each of these variables, the reduction in imports would be,
respectively, 1.5 and 4.2%.
Table 1 Economic significance of the estimates

Conversely, although on average lockdowns in third countries do not have a significant effect
on a country’s imports from China, the direct effect of COVID-19 in third countries does.
Specifically, more deaths in the main trading partners of a country (excluding China) induces
that country to import significantly more from China than it otherwise would. Interestingly, as
Table 1 shows, the positive effect of COVID-19 incidence in the main trading partners more
than offsets the own negative COVID-19 incidence effect. Putting this all together, moving each
of the three variables from zero (as in 2019) to their 2020 average would imply a reduction of
nearly 10% of imports from China.

 THE TRADE EFFECTS OF THE PANDEMIC VARY ACROSS

SEVERAL DIMENSIONS

Those are average effects, and there are important sources of heterogeneity across products and
countries. Here is a summary of our findings:

 The negative trade effects of the pandemic vanish when we restrict the sample to
‘medical goods’, highlighting the idiosyncratic dynamic they followed during the
pandemic.

41
 The negative effects are significantly mitigated for products with a higher ‘work-
from- home’ share, for which a higher share of their value can be produced remotely.
 A weaker effect is also present for goods with a high ‘contract intensity’ – for which
long- term relationships are more important – and for goods exported under ‘processing
trade’.
 The negative effects are more pronounced for ‘durable consumption goods’, but are
weaker for ‘capital goods’, for which long-term planning implies a different reaction to the
temporary shock due to the pandemic.
 In ‘OECD members’, the impact of lockdown stringency reverses, indicating that it
induced a smaller reduction in domestic demand than in domestic supply.
 The ‘fiscal policies’ that governments used to compensate workers and firms affected by
the pandemic had no meaningful effect on their imports from China.
 There is an important ‘path-dependence’: while the trade effect of the pandemic in a country
in a month is negative, incidence of the shock in previous months has a positive effect on
current trade volumes. Thus, over time, contemporaneous negative effects are partially
reversed.
 The effects were concentrated on the ‘intensive margin’. This pattern mirrors what has
been found for the “great trade collapse” that followed the Global Crisis of 2008 (e.g.
Behrens et al. 2013, BRICONGNE et al. 2012).

 OTHER APPROACHES


Naturally, the COVID-19 pandemic has spurred a torrent of research on its various
consequences, and trade is no exception (see Liu et al. 2021 for a discussion of the main
studies). A common finding is that the pandemic has negatively affected international trade
flows, although the details of the results vary significantly across studies due to differences in
the empirical approach, including the level of aggregation, the types of goods studied, and the
data coverage.

An important distinction between our analysis and the existing empirical literature is that we
consider both COVID-19 death cases and lockdown policies, while most existing research
focuses on one or the other. While the COVID-19 death measure is an intuitive proxy for the
impact of the pandemic, lockdowns (of various degrees of stringency) are implemented as a
reaction to the pandemic, often exactly when the number of deaths is high or expected to rise
soon. As a result, studying either variable in isolation can lead to misleading results. Bas et al.
(2021) also use COVID-19 deaths and lockdown stringency throughout their analysis.

Another key contribution of our research is to take explicitly into account the influence of the
pandemic in the rest of world on bilateral trade flows. Most existing empirical research has not
considered such effects,2 but we show that they are quantitatively very important.

 GOING FORWARD

The COVID-19 pandemic remains in progress and its trade impacts during 2021 and beyond may
differ from its more immediate impact, as workers, firms, and governments learn how to deal

42
with and adapt to it, and as vaccinations start to allow societies to return to their pre-pandemic
modes. How these changes will affect the trade impact of the pandemic is an interesting
question for future research. Another interesting extension is the study of the possible
interaction between COVID-related effects in importing and exporting countries.

43
  EFFECT OF COVID 19 ON BUSINESS

 ABSTRACT

To explore the impact of CORONAVIRUS disease 2019 (COVID-19) on small businesses, we

conducted a survey of more than 5,800 small businesses between March 28 and April 4, 2020.
Several themes emerged. First, mass layoffs and closures had already occurred—just a few
weeks into the crisis. Second, the risk of closure was negatively associated with the expected
length of the crisis. Moreover, businesses had widely varying beliefs about the likely duration
of COVID-related disruptions. Third, many small businesses are financially fragile: The median
business with more than $10,000 in monthly expenses had only about 2 wk of cash on hand at
the time of the survey. Fourth, the majority of businesses planned to seek funding through the
CORONAVIRUS Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. However, many
anticipated problems with accessing the program, such as bureaucratic hassles and difficulties
establishing eligibility. Using experimental variation, we also assess take-up rates and business
resilience effects for loans relative to grants-based programs.

 COVID-19

 SMALL BUSINESSES

 CARES ACT

In addition to its impact on public health, CORONAVIRUS disease 2019 (COVID-19) has
caused a major economic shock. In this paper, we explore the impact of COVID-19 on the small
business landscape in the United States, focusing on three questions. First, how did small
businesses adjust to the economic disruptions resulting from COVID-19? Second, how long did
businesses expect the crisis to last, and how do expectations affect their decisions? Third, how
might alternative policy proposals impact business and employment resilience?

To explore, we surveyed more than 5,800 small businesses that are members of ALIGNABLE, a
network of 4.6 million small businesses. The survey was conducted between March 28 and
April 4, 2020. The timing of the survey allows us to understand expectations of business owners
at a critical point in time when both the progression of COVID-19 and the government’s
response were quite uncertain.

The results suggest that the pandemic had already caused massive dislocation among small
businesses just several weeks after its onset and prior to the availability of government aid
through the CORONAVIRUS Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. Across the
full sample, 43% of businesses had temporarily closed, and nearly all of these closures were due
to COVID-19. Respondents that had temporarily closed largely pointed to reductions in demand
and employee health concerns as the reasons for closure, with disruptions in the supply chain
being less of a factor. On average, the businesses reported having reduced their active

44
employment by 39% since January. The decline was particularly sharp in the Mid-Atlantic
region (which includes New York City), where 54% of firms were closed and employment was
down by 47%. Impacts also varied across industries, with retail, arts and entertainment, personal
services, food services, and hospitality businesses all reporting employment declines exceeding
50%; in contrast, finance, professional services, and real estate-related businesses experienced
less disruption, as these industries were better able to move to remote production.

Our results also highlight the financial fragility of many businesses. The median firm with
monthly expenses over $10,000 had only enough cash on hand to last roughly 2 wk. Three-
quarters of respondents only had enough cash on hand to last 2 mo or less.* Not surprisingly,
firms with more cash on hand were more optimistic that they would remain open by the end of
the year.

Our survey also elicited businesses’ beliefs about the evolution of the crisis, allowing us to study
the role of beliefs and expectations in decisions. The median business owner expected the
dislocation to last well into midsummer, as 50% of respondents believed that the crisis would
last at least until the middle of June. However, beliefs about the likely duration of the crisis
varied widely. This raises the possibility that some firms were making mistakes in their
forecasts of how long the crisis will last.†

The crisis duration plays a central role in the total potential impact. For a crisis lasting 4 mo
instead of 1 mo, only 47% of businesses expected to be open in December compared to 72%
under the shorter duration. There is also considerable heterogeneity in how sensitive businesses
are to the crisis. In-person industries like personal services or retail reported worse prospects
for riding out the pandemic than professional services or other sectors with minimal need for
face- to-face contact.

Lastly, our analysis explores variants of stimulus packages that were being discussed at the time
of the survey. The results show that over 70% of respondents anticipated taking advantage of aid
when asked about a program that resembles the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) that is part
of the CARES Act. Moreover, they expected this funding to influence other business decisions
— including layoff decisions and staying in business altogether. At the same time, many
businesses were reluctant to apply for funding through the CARES Act because of concerns
about administrative complexity and eligibility. A large number of respondents also anticipated
problems with accessing the aid, citing potential issues such as bureaucratic hassles and
difficulties establishing eligibility.

Our survey was constructed to allow for a counterfactual evaluation of a straight loan policy,
which is a stylized representation of traditional Small Business Administration disaster relief
programs. While the more generous PPP program does improve take-up and business outcomes,
traditional loans with speedy delivery and sufficient liquidity are also found to meaningfully
shift business owners’ expectations about survival. When compared to a straight loan without
forgiveness provisions, the CARES Act had modestly greater take-up, but at much higher cost to
the government. Because the majority of business owners would have taken up aid in the form of
less generous loans, our results suggest that liquidity provision was paramount for these owners.

45
Overall, our paper contributes to our understanding of the economic impact of COVID-19 on the
small business ecosystem. The fate of the 48% of American workers who work in small
businesses is closely tied to the resilience of the small business ecosystem to the massive
economic disruption caused by the pandemic. Our survey was conducted during a period of
substantial policy uncertainty and before any federal response had been enacted. Our results
provide a unique snapshot into business decisions and expectations at that time, while offering
insight for policy designed to aid the recovery. Our results highlight the role the length of the
crisis will play in determining its ultimate impact, which policy makers should consider as they
contemplate the scale of the required interventions. We estimate that closures alone might lead to
32.7 million job losses if the crisis lasts for 4 mo and 35.1 million job losses if the crisis lasts for
6. While some of these workers will surely find new jobs, these projections suggest that the
scale of job dislocation could be larger than anything America has experienced since the Great
Depression and larger than the impact of the 1918 influenza epidemic (6𝖴–8). Another
important take-away of our work is that, during liquidity crunches with significant cash flow
disruptions, the form of cash injection (e.g., grant vs. loan) may be less important than making
sure that funding is rapidly available with little administrative complexity.‡

The rest of the paper proceeds as follows. Survey Design and Details discusses the survey
design. Firm Characteristics and Representativeness discusses the characteristics of the firms
that responded to the survey and their representativeness. In Responses to the COVID-19
Pandemic and Lockdown, we explore the current and expected impacts of COVID-19 on these
businesses. In Anticipated Response to CARES Act Programs, we present results from a module
of the survey that experimentally varies policy proposals, allowing us to explore responses to
policies such as the recently passed CARES Act as well as alternative policies. Industry
Differences in Response to Crisis Duration considers survival rate differences across industries,
and how survival depends on the duration of the crisis. We conclude in Conclusion.

 SURVEY DESIGN AND DETAILS



Our survey was sent out in partnership with ALIGNABLE, a network-based platform focused on
the small business ecosystem. ALIGNABLE enables businesses to share knowledge and interact
with one another, and currently has a network of 4.6 million small businesses across North
America. Much of the network growth has been organic, with little outside marketing.

ALIGNABLE also regularly sends out polls (which they call “pulse surveys”) to users. At the
end of a regular pulse poll, participants who took that poll received an email inviting them to
participate in a more comprehensive survey being conducted by researchers at Harvard Business
School. Participants were shown a disclosure statement and consent protocol. No payments were
offered; participation was completely voluntary. The survey was approved by the Harvard
University Institutional Review Board.

We received 7,511 responses between March 27 and April 4; 5,843 of these can be traced back
to US-based businesses, which is the relevant sample for understanding policy. While the
7,511 responses represent a small fraction (0.017%) of ALIGNABLE’S total membership, they

46
represent a much larger share of ALIGNABLE’S membership that has engaged with their
weekly pulse surveys on COVID-19. ALIGNABLE estimates that 50,000 to 70,000 members
are taking these pulse surveys weekly, which suggests a 10 to 15% conversion rate of these more
active respondents.

Our sample, therefore, is selected in three ways: 1) They are firms that have chosen to join
ALIGNABLE, 2) they are ALIGNABLE firms that have chosen to stay actively engaged taking
surveys, and 3) they are the set of firms that are active within ALIGNABLE that chose to answer
our survey. Consequently, there are many reasons to be cautious when extrapolating to the entire
universe of America’s small businesses. We will discuss their representativeness based on
observable attributes in the next section of this report.

The survey included a total of 43 questions, with basic information about firm characteristics
(including firm size and industry), questions about the current response to the COVID-19 crisis,
and beliefs about the future course of the crisis. Some questions were only displayed based on
skip logic, so most participants responded to fewer questions. The survey also includes an
experimental module that randomized scenarios between respondents to understand how
different federal policies might impact these firms’ behavior and survival as the crisis unfolds.
Specifically, we experimentally varied some of the descriptions of potential policies across the
sample to shed light on the potential impact of policy initiatives that, at the time, were very
uncertain. We will discuss that module more thoroughly in Anticipated Response to CARES Act
Programs. A further experimental module included between-respondent randomization which
explored decisions under different hypothetical durations of the crisis.

 FIRM CHARACTERISTICS AND REPRESENTATIVENESS

The survey contains three baseline questions which enable us to assess the representativeness of
the sample along observable dimensions: number of employees, typical expenses (as of January
31, 2020), and share of expenses that go toward payroll. We are also able to get rough
information about geo location to assess representativeness by state.

We compare our data with data on businesses from the 2017 Census of US Businesses, using the
publicly available statistics published by the US Census Bureau. The underlying data are drawn
from the County Business Patterns sampling frame and cover establishments with paid
employees, including sole proprietorships if the owner receives a W2. The Census data capture
large and small businesses alike, but, for our comparisons, we will look only at businesses with
fewer than 500 employees.

The ALIGNABLE network allows users to share customer leads, which could potentially skew
our sample toward retail and service businesses that interact directly with consumers. Since retail
businesses are particularly vulnerable to COVID-19 disruptions, our sample could overstate the

47
aggregate dislocation created by the crisis. Naturally, industries dominated by large firms, such
as manufacturing, are underrepresented. However, as we discuss later, our data on the industry
mix of responses suggest that the sample represents a wide swath of America’s smaller
businesses.

Fig. 1 shows the size distribution of our sample and the size distribution of businesses with fewer
than 500 employees in the Economic Census. The match of employment sizes is reassuring.
About 64% of the businesses in our sample have fewer than five employees, while about 60% of
the firms in the Economic Census are that small. About 18% of businesses in both samples have
between five and nine employees. The survey becomes less precisely matched to the Census
among the larger employment groupings, and we believe that our survey will capture the
experience of larger employers with less accuracy.

Fig. 1
Firm size in the survey and Census. This figure plots the share of firms in each employment
category for the 2017 Census of US Businesses and the survey respondents. The sample size for
the survey is 4,873 responses, omitting 959 responses with missing employment data.

While our survey does not allow for a direct comparison of payroll expenses with Census data,
we constructed a rough comparison by approximating payroll expenses for the ALIGNABLE
firms from categorical questions about monthly expenses and the share of these expenses going
toward payroll. The Census provides annual payroll expenses for W2 employees. To get a sense
of the match, we compared our estimated monthly payroll expenses in our sample with one-
twelfth of annual expenses in the US Census. To facilitate comparison, we divide by an estimate
of total employment.§ Fig. 2 shows the size distribution of monthly estimated payroll expenses in
our sample and a comparable breakdown for the Census using a per capita adjustment. The
match is imperfect, especially for larger firms. The discrepancy might reflect the

48
underrepresentation of manufacturing or professional services firms in our sample, which are
among the highest paying of all two-digit North American Industry Classification System sectors
in the Census data. SI Appendix, Table S1 provides further detail on the industry match to the
Census.

Fig. 2.
Average per capita payroll ($1,000s) in the survey and Census. This figure plots per-employee
payroll in thousands of dollars by firm size for the 2017 Census of US Businesses aggregates and
the survey respondents. The Census data only report annual payroll for W2 workers and the
number of firms in an employment size category. To calculate payroll for the survey firms, we
take the midpoint of categorical answers for monthly expenses, multiply by the fraction of
expenses going toward payroll, and divide by total employees (we cannot distinguish between
W2 employees and contractors).

Fig. 3 shows the share of our sample coming from the 10 most populous states. The figure also
includes the share of small businesses in the Economic Census that are within each state. For
example, California has 14.4% of our ALIGNABLE survey sample, 12.5% of small businesses
in the Census data, and 11.52% of total US population. Our sample does over represent the
coasts and under represents Illinois. ALIGNABLE shared the geographic distribution of their
weekly pulse survey takers, and the final set of columns within each grouping allows us to
assess selection differences between respondents to the shorter pulse poll and our downstream
survey. There are some minor sampling differences across states, but the ALIGNABLE pulse
poll sample and those taking our broader survey have quite good geographic coverage.

49
Fig. 3.
Firm locations in the Census, downstream survey, and upstream pressure ALIGNABLE poll. This
figure plots the share of firms in each state for the 2017 Census of US Businesses, the survey
respondents, and the respondents who took the upstream ALIGNABLE poll. Users who took the
survey did so after taking the ALIGNABLE poll. They were then redirected to the Harvard
Business School web link. Note that the upstream poll did not ask questions about firm size or
payroll, so prior figures cannot check compositional differences based on firm size or pay.

To shed further light on our sample, we conducted a follow-up phone screen of 400 businesses—
a randomly selected set of 200 businesses that responded to our survey and 200 businesses from
the broader active ALIGNABLE membership (i.e., that filled out their previous pulse poll), but
who did not respond to our survey. During the phone screen, we asked each business whether
they were still open for business. For businesses that did not answer the phone on a first attempt,
we made a second attempt to call. Out of the businesses who responded to our survey, roughly
42% reported being open when we called them. Out of the businesses that are active on
ALIGNABLE but did not respond to our survey, roughly 56% reported being open.

Overall, while the sample captured by the survey may be an imperfect snapshot for certain
pockets of America’s small businesses, it also allows for important insight into the overall small
business ecosystem. The sample is large and includes firms from most major industry groups,
states, and firm size categories.

 RESPONSES TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC AND LOCKDOWN

50
We now turn to our main results, which we group into three categories. First, we describe the
impact of COVID-19 on business operations and employment toward the beginning of the crisis.
Second, we report our results on the financial fragility of those businesses, as captured by their
cash on hand and ongoing expenses. Third, we turn to their expectations about the duration of
the crisis and their own economic survival, as measured at a particularly sensitive point for
understanding the impact of future policies.

 TEMPORARY CLOSINGS AND EMPLOYMENT.

The initial survey question asked owners, “is this business currently operational?” We allowed
owners to respond that the business was operational, temporarily closed, or permanently
closed. We also allowed them to report whether the business was closed because of COVID-19
or another reason.¶

Across the sample, 41.3% of businesses reported that they were temporarily closed because of
COVID-19. A far smaller number—1.8%—reported that they were permanently closed
because of the pandemic. By contrast, only 1.3% reported that they were temporarily closed for
other reasons; 55.5% reported that they were still operational.

We also asked the business owners to fill in a matrix that contained the number of full-time and
part-time employees that were employed by the firm “now,” as of the survey date, and on
January 31, 2020. Over the entire sample, the number of full-time employees had fallen by 32%
between January 31 and late March 2020. The number of part-time employees was 57% lower
than at the end of January. Overall employment declined significantly, totaling a 39% reduction
from January headcount. These results include businesses that had temporarily closed. If we look
only at businesses that were still operating, we find that the number of total full-time employees
had fallen by 17.3%.The number of part-time employees declined by 34%. These estimates can
also be compared to other emerging data points. The Atlanta Fed conducted a similar survey,
drawn from Dun & Bradstreet listings, and found smaller employment effects (roughly 10%
decrease in employment). Whereas their survey includes larger firms as well, our focus is on
smaller businesses. Further, their survey under samples newer firms, which may have larger
employment changes. We can also compare our results to publicly released aggregated payroll
data from Automatic Data Processing, Inc. (ADP), a provider of human resources management
software (which may have different issues of representativeness).In those data, paid employment
at firms with less than 500 employees declined by about 18% between January and APRIL.
These data, however, treat anyone receiving pay in April as employed even if they were laid off
during or before the interval. Looking at higher-frequency data on paychecks in the ADP micro
data, concurrent but independent work by. ( finds that employment declined, on average, 27%
for firms with less than 500 employees and about 28% for firms with less than 50 employees
between mid-February and mid-April. These numbers are somewhat smaller than the 39%
decline in employment for small businesses that we find but higher than the estimates of the
Atlanta Fed survey.

51
We then expand to look at geographic variation of the effects. Table 1 shows our results across
the 11 Census divisions and displays the share of businesses that had temporarily closed because
of COVID-19 and the reduction in total employment between January 31 and the survey date.
The results are not meaningfully different if we separate out full-time or part-time employees.
While there is regional heterogeneity, the disruptions are severe almost everywhere.

Table 1
Summary measures across regions

The Mid-Atlantic division had the sharpest decreases in employment and the largest share of
firms that had temporarily suspended operations. Fifty-four percent of firms in that region were
closed in late March/early April, and employment had fallen by an average of 47%. The
Mountain region was the least affected, but, even there, 39% of firms had temporarily closed,
and employment had declined by 32%.

Fig. 4 shows a histogram of cash available as a multiple of January 31, 2020 monthly expenses.
Approximately one-fourth of firms had cash on hand totaling less than 1 mo of expenses.
About one-half of firms had enough cash on hand to cover between 1 mo and 2 mo of
expenses.

Fig. 4.
Months of cash. This figure plots firms’ months of cash available as a multiple of January 2020
expenses. We compute this measure by taking the midpoint of categorical responses for the
amount of cash on hand and dividing by the midpoint of the categorical response for typical
monthly expenses prior to the crisis. The sample size is 4,176.

Fig.5 sorts firms by January 31, 2020 monthly expenses and then tabulates the mean and median
cash on hand relative to pre crisis expenses. The median firm with under $10,000 in monthly
expenses had 1 mo of cash on hand. For all firms with greater than $10,000 in monthly expenses,

52
the median firm typically had less than 15 d of cash on hand, based on their pre crisis expense
levels. These firms did not have cash on hand to meet their regular expenses.

Fig. 5.
Mean and median months of cash split by monthly expenses ($1,000s). This figure plots means
and medians of the months of cash available measure across the distribution of typical monthly
expenses.

These limited levels of cash on hand help to shed light on why layoffs and shutdowns were so
prevalent. Absent these actions, it is hard to understand how these firms could have met payroll.

Predicting the Path of the Crisis

Finally, we ask the firms to predict how long the COVID-19 crisis will last and whether they
believe they will be open again at the end of 2020. To predict the end of the crisis, we asked the
survey respondents “the most likely date” when the crisis would be over. We also asked them
their confidence about this belief on a 1 to 10 scale.

Fig. 6 shows the histogram of responses about whether firms will be open on December 31,
2020. Overall, more than 90% thought it is at least somewhat likely that they would be open.
More than 63% reported that it is very or extremely likely that they would be open—which we
later use as a measure of the probability of being open. A growing literature has found
entrepreneurs to be overoptimistic about their prospects (see, for example, ref. 13). This suggests
that true survival rates may be even lower than predicted by businesses.

53
Fig. 6.
Likelihood of remaining open or reopening by December. This figure displays the frequency of
answers to a question about the likelihood of being open in December 2020. Responses are
plotted based on whether the firm has more than the median number of months of cash on
hand given their pre-COVID expenses.

The firms with more cash on hand were more confident about their future, as evidenced by the
split based on whether the firm had more or less cash on hand (relative to usual monthly
expenses) than the median in our sample. Fifty percent of those firms with more than the median
cash on hand thought it was extremely likely that they would be open at the end of the year.
Thirty-one percent of firms with less cash on hand, relative to the median, thought that they
would be open at the end of the year. One interpretation of these findings is that liquidity
generated confidence in the ability to survive this crisis. Among firms with at least 20
employees, 71% expressed that they were either very likely or extremely likely to survive,
which may indicate greater access to outside resources despite having a higher expense base.

Fig. 7 shows the expected take-up of the two programs (the exact details of the question wording
is contained in the figure legend). Seventy-two percent of respondents who were told about the
loans with forgiveness said that they would like to take them up. Fifty-nine percent of
respondents were interested in taking up the loan program without forgiveness. While there was
substantial interest in a pure-loan program, there was significantly more interest in the loan
program with forgiveness.

54
Fig. 8.
Differences in policy take-up across loans versus CARES Act PPP split by hypothetical limits on
borrowing amount. This figure displays policy take-up rates for loans versus the stylized PPP
policy using a between-subjects design. The borrowing base was also randomized between
subjects as a multiple of typical monthly expenses prior to the crisis. The text displayed for the
PPP program was, “Imagine a policy where the government allows you to borrow up to
[borrowing base] times your typical monthly expenses without posting any collateral. You could
use this money to cover any of your business expenses. The loan will be forgiven by the amount
spent on payroll, lease, rent, mortgage, and utility payments in the 8 weeks after origination (you
can consider this amount to be a grant). The remainder of the loan (that is not spent on these
items) will have deferred payments for 1 year. After that, the loan would have an annual interest
rate of 4% (deferred for 1 year) and you would have up to 10 years to repay the loan. For
example, if you borrow $50,000 and you have no qualifying expenses to offset the loan, the
required monthly payment starting 1 year from today would be $506 per month for 10 years. If
you borrow $50,000 and spend $40,000 to pay your employees during the first 8 weeks, you will
have 10 years to pay the remaining $10,000 with monthly payments of $102.” Subjects in the
loan condition saw the text, “Imagine the government offers a loan allowing you to borrow up to
[borrowing base] times your typical monthly expenses without posting any collateral. You could
use this money to cover any of your business expenses. The loan would have an annual interest
rate equivalent of 4% and principal and interest payments would be deferred for 1 year. You
would have up to 10 years to repay the loan. For example, if you borrow $50,000, the required
monthly payment starting 1 year from today would be $506 per month for 10 years.” Pooled
means for the loan and CARES Act responses are 0.59 and 0.72, respectively. The sample size is
2,610, and the pooled t-statistic on the difference between policies is 6.97.

55
Fig. 9.
Differences in policy effects on the propensity to remain open in December of 2020, split by
hypothetical limits on borrowing amount. This figure plots differences in the propensity to
remain open under different policies. The measure is computed using a follow-up question after
policy information displayed, using the fraction that chose “Very likely” or “Extremely likely”
to be open in December of 2020. Pooled means for the loan and CARES Act are 0.805 and
0.848, respectively. The sample size is 2,550, and the pooled t-statistic on the difference between
policies is 2.76.

56
  CONCLUSION

Small businesses employ almost 50% of American workers. Yet, our results underscore the
financial fragility of many small businesses, and how deeply affected they are by the current
crisis. In our sample, which is skewed toward the retail sector, we found that 43% of businesses
were temporarily closed and that employment had fallen by 40%. This represents a shock to
America’s small firms that has little parallel since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Our results
suggest that many of these firms had little cash on hand toward the beginning of the pandemic,
which means that they will either have to dramatically cut expenses, take on additional debt, or
declare bankruptcy. This highlights the ways in which the immediacy of new funding might
impact medium term outcomes.

Small businesses’ responses to our survey suggest that many are likely to fail absent financial
assistance. As of the last week of March 2020, 38% of businesses viewed it as unlikely or only
somewhat likely that they would be open as of the end of 2020. While optimism increased when
they were informed about the CARES loan program, it is unclear whether the CARES act will
enable most of America’s small businesses to survive—or whether beliefs about its impact are
overly optimistic.

The results also highlight the importance of well-designed and sustained economic and public
health policy measures. Three policy-relevant results of our survey stand out. First, more than
13% of respondents say that they do not expect to take out CARES Act PPP loans because of the
application hassle, distrust that the federal government will forgive the loans, or worry about
complicated eligibility rules. Therefore, streamlining the application process and clarifying the
eligibility criterion and loan forgiveness rules might increase the take-up rate for loans. Second,
firms in particularly exposed industries—such as restaurants, tourism, and personal services—
project that they will find it extremely difficult to stay in business if the crisis lasts for longer
than 4 mo. These findings suggest large economic benefits from any policies that can safely
shorten the economic shutdown (e.g., through stronger short-term containment policies). Third,
if we extrapolate the 72% of businesses who indicate they would take up the CARES PPP loans
to all US small businesses, the total volume of loans would be approximately $410 billion. (This
assumes that all businesses take out the maximum loan size [2.5 mo of expenses].) When we
allow for different take-up rates by employer size and multiply by the 2017 Census payroll
amounts in each firm size category, we estimate total loan demand of $436 billion, in excess of
the $349 billion allocated in the first tranche of the CARES act.††† Total demand for such aid
may ultimately be even higher under an extended crisis.

57
 1.7 EMPLOYMENT, SALES, AND CASH FLOW

This section attempts to characterize the MSMEs that experienced more severe effectsof the
pandemic and the related changes in business environments than others. Our questionnaire
asked the respondents about the magnitude of changes in permanent employment as
follows: “Was the number of permanent employees at the time ofthe survey less than
40% of that in December 2019, more than 40%, more than 60%, more than 80%, about
100%, more than 100%, or more than 120%?” Based on the respondents’ answers to this
question, Figure 3-1 shows the percentage of firms that reduced their number of permanent
(or regular) employees by any percentage after the outbreak of the pandemic and the
percentage that reduced the number by more than 40%. Similarly, Figure 3-2 shows the
corresponding percentages for non-permanent employees. Except for Bangladesh,
Malaysia, and Mongolia, scores of MSMEs in the sample countries had to cut not only
their temporary but also their permanent employees considerably. Malaysian firms reduced
their temporary employment more drastically than their counterparts in the other countries,
which might have helped them to maintain their permanent employment.

Figure 3-1: Percentage of Firms that Reduced the Number of Permanent

Employees after the Outbreak of the Pandemic

58
Figure 3.2; percentage of forms that reduce the number of temporary employees after
the outbreak of the pandemic

The vast majority of the sample firms experienced declines in sales revenues in the first
half of 2020 compared with a year previously. Figure 4-1 shows the extent of sales reduction
in the same manner as Figures 3-1 and 3-2, except that data on sales reduction are not available
for Viet Nam and Malaysia. Indonesia had a greater reduction than the other sample countries.
The percentage of the firms that lost more than 40% of their sales was higher in Indonesia than
in any other sample country. As shown in Figure 4-2, however, and to our surprise, it was
Indonesia that had the lowest percentage of firms expecting negative sales growth in 2020.
Optimism is also observable in Viet Nam, where only 18% of the sample firms predicted
negative sales growth even though their job cuts were substantial, as Figures 3-1 and 3-2
showed. By contrast, the Bangladeshi respondents were very pessimistic. More than 90% of
them expected negative sales growth, and 44% expected their sales to reduce by more than
40%, even though they made relatively few job cuts. Their pessimism is also in stark contrast
to the high economic growth rate of their country,

59
 Figure 4-1: Percentage of Firms that Reduced Sales in the First Half of 2020 in aYear-to-
Year Comparison (Data Are Available Only for the Six Countries)

Figure 4-2: Percentage of Firms that Expected Negative Growthin the

2020 Annual Sales

During the survey, we asked the respondents if they were short of cash at the time of the
survey. The respondents could interpret this question in various ways, and many small
business owners tended to answer “yes” even though they did not face a serious problem
due to a cash shortage. Thus, in addition to this question, we also asked if they had
difficulty in fulfilling their contracts. Only about half of those who said that they were short
of cash answered this additional question affirmatively, whereas more than 80% of those
who answered this question affirmatively said that they were short of cash. We decided to

60
 regard only those respondents who answered both questions affirmatively as facing a cash
shortage.2
Figure 5 shows the data on cash shortages in this sense, together with the data on the experience
of a temporary closedown or market exit. For each country, the first bar indicates the percentage
of firms suffering a cash shortage, the second bar the percentage of firms that experienced (or
were experiencing) an exit, and the third bar the percentage of firms with both experiences.
Again, in marked contrast to its high economic growth performance, Bangladesh had many
MSMEs that experienced a cashshortage and temporary exit during the pandemic period

Figure 5: Percentage of Firms that Experienced a Cash Shortageand Temporary Exit

61
 For MSMEs, online sales are a new approach to marketing. Like the adoption of a new
technology, the use of this marketing approach may save laborinput, but it may also create
jobs through its sales expansion effect. We include boththe online sales 2019 variable,
which is the fraction of sales revenue from online sales, and its squared term in the second
and fourth columns to allow for the expected non-linear relationship between online sales
and changes in employment size. We include seven country dummies as well, with
Bangladesh as the point of reference.
Throughout all the columns, the hard-hit manufacturing dummy and the hard-hit services
dummy have negative and highly significant coefficients. The coefficients for the female
entrepreneur dummy are positive and slightly significant in the first two columns and
insignificant in the last two columns. Thus, we can say that those countries with a high
prevalence of female entrepreneurs have tended to maintain the employment of not only
permanent but also non-permanent workers, but it is difficult to say that female
entrepreneurs have maintained employment more than male entrepreneurs. Note also that
we find no evidence supporting the view that female entrepreneurs are prone to losing their
employment in crises.
There is a common assumption that non-permanent workers of microenterprises are more
vulnerable. The coefficients for the small enterprise dummy and the medium enterprise
dummy indicate that, while these enterprises tend to cut permanent employees less
drastically than microenterprises, no significance difference exists in the severity of job
cuts between smaller and larger MSMEs when it comes to non- permanent workers. The
coefficients for the export dummy suggest that export-oriented firms had to reduce their
number of permanent employees more than their non- exporting counterparts but that
MSMEs reduced their number of non-permanent employees regardless of their export
orientation.
An interesting finding is that employment reductions, whether permanent or non- permanent,
were greater for those firms that adopted online sales than for those thatdid not, as columns
(1) and (3) indicate, and that the difference was highly significant.In addition, the significant
coefficients for the online sales in 2019 and their square had negative and positive signs,
respectively, as indicated in columns (2) and (4). These coefficients suggest a non-linear
relationship between the online sales share and the employment size, which reaches the lowest
point when the online sales share is around 40%.3 Up to around 40%, an increase in online sales
has an association with a higher probability that firms decreased their employment size by a
certain level anda lower probability that they maintained or increased their number of
employees. In contrast, once the share reaches 40%, an increase in online sales comes with a
higher probability of employment cuts and a lower probability of employment increases

62
 2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

2.1OBJECTIVE

 people know about the effect of COVID 19 on trade and business

 study of trader and businessman about their problem about the covid 19
 to study for COVID 19
 to study and research of impact of CORONAVIRUS to business and trade sector
 people aware about the result they face during the CORONAVIRUS

2.2SCOPE OF A STUDY

this study is conducting to find out the views of trader and business man to know about their
problem face during COVID 19. the respond selected are of mixed group which will give wider
difference is understanding. the scope of the study is limited only to the concerned area of study
which cannot be justified for any other places

2.3LIMITATION OF STUDY

 The study is confined in BHIWANDI city.

 The data collected for the research is given by the respondents. There
is chance for personal bias. So the accuracy is not true.
 The study is based on the prevailing respondents satisfaction. But
their satisfaction may change according to time and needs
 The information collected is mainly primary data and the accuracy is subject
to the respond received.
 Due to lack of time the good amount of data collection was not possible so
research had to rely on limitation data of sample size of 5o respondent
only
 Some people ware not interest in filling questionnaire because of their busy
schedule.

63
 2.4NEED AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

COVID 19 and their effect on business and trade is a major relief to industry, trade, and
customers through comprehensive and wider coverage of input tax set off subsuming of
multiple taxes., it will insure a simpler tax with fewer tax, rates and exemptions, a simplified
tax regime couple with simple articulate and largely online procedure will leads to improve
tax compliance with lesser scope for mistake. Effect of COVID19 on trade and business is
the best opportunity for consumers that help to increasing the knowledge about the their
effect. The implementation will leads to immense scope for each consumers and to keep
pace with the changing global indirect tax scenario.

most of the consumers are un ware of effect of COVID 19 to trade and business are
applicability on variants like omicron and beta . their most of different variants are the more
dangerous than the previous variants.

2.5 SELECTION OF THE PROBLEM

the project selection of ‘effect of COVID 19 on trade and business’ are the virus was who invent
in lab are accidently. The CORONAVIRUS had spread through mouth and nose to one person
to another. Hence the CORONAVIRUS disease are more quickly spread around the world

the more spread around the world, the more person is affected this disease and people are death
ratio are increased hence the every country decided to lockdown the country because they can
stop spreading CORONAVIRUS.

2.6 SAMPLE SIZE

The primary data have been collected through the questionnaire on a friend and friends of
friend, the relative and a random person which are related to college, business person, working
men and some people.

2.7 DATA COLLECTION

The study is based on both of primary and secondary data

64
Primary source : the purpose of a case study primary data have been collected from the
people of BHIWANDI city through phone calls and social network.

Secondary source: the secondary data have been collected from different articles and
website resources such www.wikipedia.com , www.google.com and some others. I have
used simple pictures, table, and graph to analysis and present the data. Apart from this I
also followed supervisor instruction to finish the project.

65
 3. LITERATURE REVIEW

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is causing unprecedented disruptions to economic activities

across
countries, and India is no exception. The pandemic has severely affected and continues to disrupt
global
Value chains (GVCs), domestic production network, trade, services and MSMEs thereby
affecting
Overall growth and welfare. The current pandemic is working its way through a highly
globalized world
with interconnected financial markets and production networks. The complete lockdown and
currently
the ongoing partial lockdowns have both demand-side and supply-side effects on the Indian
economy.
On the supply side, the restrictions of movement of goods, services and personnel affects the
production
networks. The plunge in economic activities and overall output growth leads to employment loss.
The
supply shocks will further create demand-side effects by reducing the economy’s disposable
income,
savings and giving rise to unwanted uncertainty.
Therefore, the economic impact of COVID-19 is expected on every sphere including growth,
international trade, financial markets, unemployment, income, poverty and many more variables.
The
impact of the virus spread is expected to lead to a huge loss as global trade is severely affected.
The
Indian growth model depends on the export-led-growth (MISHRA, 2019), and hence can
experience
massive impact on growth due to lockdown amidst the virus spread. On the international
trade front, it is
expected to plunge in a range of 13–32 per cent under optimistic and pessimistic scenarios,
respectively
(WTO, 2020). In another estimation, MCKIBBIN and Fernando (2020) utilized the computable
general
equilibrium (CGE) modeling and reported that global GDP would be reduced by around US$2.4
trillion
in 2020 under a low-end pandemic considering the Hong Kong Flu as a reference point.
However, the
fall can extend to the tune of over US$9 trillion in 2020 in case of a serious outbreak similar to
the
Spanish flu. OZILI and ARUN (2020) noted the spillover effects of COVID-19 and hailed that
the social

66
distancing measure of virus controlling led to the shutdown of financial markets, corporate
offices,
businesses and events which in turn may have significant impact on economic growth. As per
the International Labor Organization (ILO) estimation, the total value added of industrial
enterprises in
China declined by 13.5 per cent during the first 2 months of 2020 (National Bureau of
Statistics of China,
2020). There are many projections and estimations by institutions and scholars on the economic
fallout
of COVID-19 pandemic. Though there are variations in degree and magnitude of the fall out,
now there
is a reasonable amount of coconscious that the economic impact would be severe on the world
economy
SAHOO and ASHWANI 1161
and also on Indian economic growth, much more than the global financial crisis (GFC) of 2008.
IMF in
its latest estimate in June 2020 projected that the global economy may shirk by 4.9 per cent,
almost three
times more than GFC, and the Indian economy is likely to witness 4.5 per cent negative growth
for the
2020.
With regard to the impact on employment and income, ILO (2020) estimated that global
unemployment
can range between 5.3 million and 24.7 million from a base level of 188 million in 2019 pushing
these
people towards below poverty line. Most of existing studies have focused on global growth, trade
and
unemployment, a few are country specific especially India. In this context, the present study
aims to
make an assessment of COVID-19 on Indian economy and highlights key policy measures to
control the
possible fallout on the economy. The study contributes the existing literature while analysis the
impact
on Indian economy with more focus on growth, trade, manufacturing and MSMEs. The detailed
procedure of the assessment is reported in the next section.

67
4 DATA ANALYSIS, INTERPRETATION AND PRESENTATION
This chapter include data analysis, data presentation by different charts and data interpretation on
the basis of the answer received from the annexed questionnaire

Duration of a survey 25rd November 2021 to 16th December 2021

Target population Local people of BHIWANDI city
Survey method Through social networking
Table no 4.1

Q1 Gender

FREQUENCY %
MALE 17 73
FEMALE 6 27
Table no 4.2

GENDER
MALEFEMALE

26%

74%

Chart no 4.1

INTERPRETATION

Among 23 respondents, 73% are male and 27% are female.

68
Q2. AGE GROUP

FREQUENCY %
BELOW 20 1 4%
21-35 13 57%
36-50 7 30%
ABOVE 50 2 9%
Table no 4.3

AGE GROUP
BELOW 2021-3536-50ABOVE 50

9% 4%

30%

57%

Chart no 4.2

Interpretation

out of 23 respondents, 1 respondent is in below 20 age group, 13 respondents in 21-35 are group,
7 respondents in 36-50 age group, and 2 respondents in above 5o age group

Q3 occupation

Frequency %
Student 2 9%
Businessman 5 22%
Self-employed 8 35%
Employee 8 34%
Table no 4.4

69
 occupation
studentbusinessman self-employed employee

27% 28%

17%
28%

Chart no 4.3

Interpretation

Over 23 responded, 28% are students, 17% are businessman, 28% are self-employed and 27%
people are employee

Q4 DO YOU AWARE ABOUT COVID 19 ?

frequency %
Yes 19 83%
no 4 17%

table no 4.5

70
 do you aware about covid 19 ?
yesno

17%

83%

Chart no4.4

Interpretation

among 23 respondents, 87% are aware for the COVID 19 and 17% people are not aware of
COVID 19

Q5. SOURCE OF AWARENESS ABOUT COVID 19 ?

FREQUENCY %
FRIENDS 6 26%
FAMILY 4 17%

71
NEWSPAPER 3 13%
SEMINAR/ CLASSES 5 22%
MASS MEDIA 2 9%
ONLINE 3 13%
TABLE NO. 4.6

SOURCE OF AWARENESS ABOUT COVID 19

FRIENDSFAMILYNEWSPAPERSEMINAR/CLASSESMASS MEDIAONLINE

13%
26%
9%

22%
17%

13%

TABLE NO 4.5

INTERPRETATION

AMONG 23 RESPONDENTS, 9% MASS MEDIA, 13% ARE ONLINE, 26% ARE FRIENDS,
17 % ARE FAMILY, 13% NEWSPAPER AND 22% SEMINAR/CLASS

Q5.the government had given enough awareness of COVID 19

frequency %
Yes 17 74%
no 6 26%

Chart no 4.6

72
the government had given enough awareness of COVID
19
YESNO

26%

74%

INTERPRETATION

Among 23 respondents, the 26% people are says no to government gives a COVID
19 awareness, and 74% people agree for that.

73
Q6. Do agree to COVID 19 had a dangerous disease?

frequency %
Agree 20 87%
disagree 3 13%

Table no 4.7

do you agree to COVID 19 had dangerous disease?

agreedisagree

13%

87%

Chart no 4.6

Interpretation

The 23 respondents, the 13% respondents are disagree to the COVID 19 are dangerous
disease, other 87% respondents says the COVID 19 is very dangerous disease.

Q.7 does COVID 19 are large impact on trade sector?

74
 frequency %
Yes 17 74%
No 6 26%

Table no 4.8

does COVID 19 are large impact on trade

sector?
yesno

42%

58%

Chart no 4.7

Interpretation

Among 23 respondents, 58% people says that COVID 19 does affected to trade sector and
42% people are says no to this question.

75
Q8. Does COVID 19 are the huge impact of business sector

FREQUENCY %
Yes 14 61%
no 9 39%

table no 4.9

does covid 19 are huge impact of business sector?

yesno

39%

61%

Chart no 4.8

Interpretation

Among 23 respondents, the 61% people said yes, it does affect of business sector and 39%
people are not agree with this question

76
Q9. Does COVID 19 impact of economy sector?

frequency %
Yes 17 74%
No 6 26%

Table no 4.10

does COVID 19 impact of economy sector?

yesno

26%

74%

Chart no 4.9

Interpretation

Among 23 respondents, the 74% are said yes for the COVID 19 impact does affected the
economical sector and the 26% people disagree that question.

77
Q10. Does COVID 19 impact of Indian budget?

FREQUENCY %
YES 19 83%
NO 4 17%

Table no 4.11

does COVID 19 impact of indian budget?

yesno

17%

83%

Chart no. 4.10

Interpretation

Among 23 respondents, the 83% people said yes and they agree to COVID 19 does huge
impact to Indian budget, and 17% people disagree with this question.

78
Q11 GOVERNMENT DID WELL JOB FOR HELPING CORONAVIRUS AFFECTED
PEOPLE?

FREQUENCY %
YES 14 61%
NO 9 39%

TABLE NO 4.12

GOVERNMENT DID WELL JOB FOR HELPING

CORONAVIRUS AFFECTING PEOPLE
YESNO

39%

61%

CHART NO 4.11

INTERPRETATION

Among 23 respondents, the 61% people said yes they believed government did very well
job for CORONAVIRUS affected people and 39% people are not agree with this question

79
Q12. DOES LOCKDOWN ARE HELPFUL TO STOP SPREADING CORONAVIRUS?

FREQUENCY %
YES 13 57%
NO 10 43%

TABLE NO 4.13

DOES LOCKDOWN ARE HELPFUL TO

STOP
SPREADING CORONAVIRUS
YESNO

43%

57%

Chart no 4.12

INTERPRETATION

Among 23 respondents, the 57% people said yes, the lockdown are helpful to stop
spreading CORONAVIRUS. and 43% people are disagree this question.

80
Q13. PEOPLE ARE SUPPORT OF A VACCINATION?

FREQUENCY %
YES 23 100
NO 0

Table no 14

people are support of vaccination

yesno

0%

100%

Chart no. 4.13

Interpretation

Among of 23 respondents, the 100% people said yes and they support they aware to
vaccination

81
Q14. THE PEOPLE HAD A FOLOW UP GOVERNMENT GUIDELINE?

FREQUENCY %
YES 15 65%
NO 8 35%

Table no.4.15

the people had a follow up government guidelines?

yesno

35%

65%

Chart no. 4.14

Interpretation

Among 23 respondents, the 65% people had agree and they follows the government
guidelines and other 35% people had don’t follow governments guidelines.

82
 5. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

5.1 FINDINGS

After analysis and interpretation of the data are following findings were emerge:

1. Most of the respondents are male

2. Majority of the respondents are comes under the age group 21-35 years and less
people under the group of 36-50 people
3. 56% respondents are employee category and 20% respondents are self-employed
4. 98% respondents are aware about COVID-19 and out of mostly are aware of
COVID- 19 through the mass media
5. 76% respondents perception is that government had not give enough awareness
before COVID 19 come
6. 70% respondents have knowledge about a precaution to fight against the COOVID 19.
7. Most of the people think the COVID 19 are effected in trade and business sector
8. Most of respondents are know about their causes.
9. Most of respondent are believed the COVID 19 are affect their personal as well
as professional life.

5.2 CONCLUSION

It is possible to summarize the major findings from this study as follows. First, MSMEs in
developing Asia experienced considerably reduced employment and sales revenues in the first
few months after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. The reduction in employment was, of
course, more severe for the employment of non-permanent employees, but the employment of
permanent or regular employees was also significant. Although there are considerable
differences among countries, one-fourth to one-half of the sample MSMEs experienced a
temporary closedown during this period and one-third to two-thirds were facing a cash shortage
at the time of the survey. Thus, the impacts of the pandemic on the employment and the
sustainability of business were quite severe.
Second, interestingly, the severity of these impacts, if compared among the countries in question,
is not consistent with the impression that one would have from the GDP growth rate forecasts of
these countries. For example, the employment reduction was relatively large in Viet Nam, which
was experiencing positive GDP growth, and the highest percentage of firms experiencing a cash
shortage occurred in Bangladesh, which was experiencing a higher GDP growth rate than any
other country in the sample. Presumably, this inconsistency arises from the vulnerability of
MSMEs, which is acute, especially in lower-income economies. MSMEs in such economies are
prone to using up liquid assets and to cutting employment as a precaution.
Third, scores of sample enterprises earned revenues from online sales before the pandemic, and
many of them, especially young firms, export-oriented firms, firms facing a cash shortage, and
those having used online sales, plan to increase the share of online sales in the midst of the
pandemic. Fourth, the share of online sales has a non-linear relationship with employment. As

83
the share increases until it reaches about 40% of the total sales, its relationship with employment
is negative, suggesting that the use of online sales displaces labor input. As the share increases
further, however, the relationship becomes positive, suggesting that larger-scale use of online
sales creates jobs. Our data do not provide evidence that sales revenue increases or decreases as
the share of online sales increases or that the likelihood of facing a cash shortage is related to this
share

5.3 SUGGESTION

The following suggest are recommended.

1. People have follow to the government guidelines hence people are the safe
.
2. The COVID 19 are more affect to the business industry, people should have
use precaution out of home
.
3. Businesses may did close when a in this company, there are people who had
CORONAVIRUS symptom , they should first check whether that person who
are CORONAVIRUS effected or not.

4. People had been a ready for the next wave or a new CORONAVIRUS variant.

5. The public is not aware about this disease, people who should worry about the disease.

6. Regulation and guidelines must be clear to everyone.

7. The government must ensure a good management to goods and service to poor people.

8. People are followed the WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION guidelines.

84
 6. REFERENCE

WEBSITES:-

1. WWW.GOOGLE.COM

2. WWW.WIKIPEDIA.COM

3. JOURNALS.SAGEPUB.COM

4. WWW.RESEARCHGATE.NET

85
 QUESTIONNAIRE

Dear respondent,

I, AMIT RAMAN JAWALIYA. OF L.D SONAWANE COLLEGE. I would like to take a

survey for my project ‘the effect of COVID 19 on trade and business’. This questionnaire will
take only few minutes to complete, please read properly and give your honest answer, please
do not submit this questionnaire more than one.

1. NAME

2. GENDER
o MALE
o FEMALE

3. AGE GROUP
o BELOW 20
o 21-35
o 36-50
o ABOVE 5O

4. OCCUPATION
o STUDENT
o BUSINESSMAN
o SELF-EMPLOYED
o EMPLOYEE
o OTHER

5. DO YOU AWARE ABOUT COVID 19?

o YES
o NO

6. SOURCE OF AWARENESS ABOUT COVID 19?

o FRIENDS
o FAMILY
o NEWSPAPER
o MASS MEDIA
o ONLINE

7. THE GOVERNMENT HAD GIVEN ENOUGH AWARENESS OF COVID 19?

o YES
o NO

86
8. DO YOU AGREE TO COVID 19 HAD A DANGEROUS DISEASE?
o YES
o NO

9. DOES COVID 19 ARE LARGE IMPACT OF TRADE SECTOR?

o YES
o NO

10. DOES COVID 19 HAD THE HUGE IMPACT OF BUSINESS SECTOR?

o YES
o NO

11. DOES COVID 19 HAD HUGE IMPACT OF ECONOMY SECTOR?

o YES
o NO

12. DOES COVID 19 IMPACT OF INDIAN BUDGET?

o YES
o NO

13. GOVERNMENT DID WELL TO HELP A CORONAVIRUS AFFECTING PEOPLE?

o YES
o NO

14. DOES LOCKDOWN ARE HELPFUL TO NOT SPREADING THIS DISEASE?

o YES
o NO

15. PEOPLE ARE SUPPORT OF A VACCINATION?

o YES
o NO

16. THE PEOPLE HAD A FOLLOW UP THE GOVERNMENT GUIDELINES?

o YES
o NO

87