The use of ICT is phenomenal. Contact tracing is difficult without ICTs. The use of mobile apps, automatic terminal thermometers are great tools

Yes, ICT is no longer a ‘support tool’ but a ‘strategic asset’ against the corona-virus. It can help in so many ways from monitoring and evaluation, tracing and tracking, information gathering and analysis, information dissemination and empowerment of people though various technologies. It also promotes social distancing whereby people can work remotely where possible. More investment and infrastructure is hence needed in technology in this regard and for the future.

The impact of COVID-19 on economic activity is manifest in everything from diminished consumer discretionary spending to a freeze on business expenditures including capital budgets, hiring, and reduction of everything but essential operational expenses. Stated differently, virtually any substantive business expenditure that is not absolutely necessary is on hold. The exceptions are those that are critical for operations and/or clearly net positive from an expeditious return on investment from a cost reduction perspective.

ICT played a role in communicating attempts to hide the outbreak in Wuhan from central government, upon which the latter moved in and took charge. Without present-day means of communication the virus could have spread more widely and the Chinese economy, and economies beyond, would have been affected more.

The ability to 'read' and 'write' the genome of the virus is an example of the application of information technology, and the instantaneous publication of the virus on the Internet so that it became available instantaneously to all other countries enabled a country like Germany to immediately take steps to prepare for the virus spreading to the country (while the US, arguably the birthplace and paragon of ICT, failed miserably in doing the same). This publication of the genome, of course, is an example of the use of ICT, impacting on public health and the economy.

Taiwan managed to contain the coronavirus better than any other country. The country is well-informed about what goes on in China, which is of vital interest for Taiwan's survival. But the use of ICT to contain the virus has been remarkably low-tech.

What easily is forgotten in the common hyperbole about science and technology is that people's common sense and ability to manage and organise, and willingness to act collectively, are undoubtedly more important than the tools used. The use of ICT also comes with downsides, especially in terms of their impact on people's privacy and the security of data. When talking about economic impact of ICTs we should not forget that much of the functioning of the economy is based on trust. I read in some other answers the use of the term of 'strategic asset' for ICTs. It's a bit of a hollow phrase, as there isn't a common understanding of either term. 'Strategic' for what, for whom; 'asset' of whom, for what? What I do know, as an economist, that trust is important in society and for the economy. Trust is a 'free' resource. When ICT is used in a way which ignores its costs, both pecuniary but especially the intangible, it may result in the loss of trust and in 'higher cost of doing business'. Think of the centrally planned, communist economy as the extreme example of a 'trust-less' economy. That is among the important considerations in Europe to be careful with the use of ICT for tracking and managing the virus spread.

A final point re 'health and wealth'. The loss of life has also an economic cost. In the US that cost is estimated at between $6m to $10m per life lost (with a younger person's life being the more valuable). Ultimately, the decision to 're-open' the economy should be based on what is best for society, in which the loss of life in any scenario for reopening needs to be weighed against the production, employment etc. gained in each scenario. The Rockefeller Foundation has developed a plan for the US that would entail 30 million tests per month, with a cost of $350 billion to $400 billion monthly. Whether a state would use ICT for managing the virus from spreading or a more conventional labour intensive method (e.g. Massachusetts) is up to those states. As the example of Taiwan shows there is no such a rule as 'the more ICT, the better'. In my own country (The Netherlands) billions of Euros have been lost in ICT projects that caused mayhem rather than solutions. There are already examples of flaws in the apps that have been developed, and of the breach of personal data.

Apart from the views of other commentators above, which are completely valid, I would like also to outline the importance of technology in developing countries and the poorest of poor and remote regions. The benefits in healthcare and education and all human capital are clear and long-term, but even in the short-term we see use of digital ID in combination with Fintech for both governments to do social payments and for businesses (small, medium, and, as much as they exist in poor developing countries, large enterprises) to pay and obtain payments from customers and suppliers. Such contactless financial interactions have been crucial for businesses to continue to function and to decrease exposure and enforce social distancing. We see uptake in some egovernment services as well. Digital technology (which I prefer to ICT because we seldom talk about non-digital communication tech these days - think analog landlines and such) has truly become a foundation than a tool for both business and governments.

As everyone is agreed with ICT utility. ICT enhanced the safety and used to maintain social distancing in society. It is used in contact tracing and tracking; digital payments and even delivery of goods by drones. It can also used to engage students by online classes and remote labs. It is supporting infrastructure for virtual conferences and Google meetings. The 3d-printing is used to generate new business by novel and innovative devices design and development to help doctors and medical staffs. The IIOT and Industry 4.0 are proved its utility to maintain production of emergency equipment in lock-down conditions.

ICTs refers to technology that provide access to information through telecommunication this includes the wireless network , cellphone, and other communication systems . it covers any product that will store, retrieve, manipulate , transmit or receive information.Example robots ,email And most important thing is if we know artificial intelligence then also we can do this

Definitely ICT helps in reducing the economic impact in the current situation. While some people lost their job due to movement control order, ICT facilitates them to quickly relearn new things which they can use to recover their income. ICT also helps people to promote their products beyond the geographical limit.

For students, without ICT, their completion of studies will be delayed and will effect the economy as well. However, this risk and challenges are cover up with the utilisation of ICT in education including the online meeting, online assessment, teaching videos, online forum and many more. Most important is everybody has awareness of the good ICT practise and determination to take this challenge to open up lots of new opportunities available.

Using the technology you can overcome the travel restriction problem and can be saved from infection of COVID 19.

السلام عليكم

بالتاكيد ان ان للتكنولوجيا اثر خلال فترة الوباء اذ كل الاعمال اصبحت تدار عن طريق الانتر نت

Article An Empirical Investigation the Use of Information, Communica...

That's a good question

I believe, ICT is just a tool. Education and creative ideas are the actual driver of progress at any time, so implementing ideas/modifying existing products and services/establishing new ones using the Internet can help to recover.