With the novel coronavirus and the disease it causes, COVID-19, spreading and people worldwide seeking ways to guard against its consequences, government leaders at every level are scrambling to take action. Although it is a minor concern relative to the immediate public health concern, a serious question remains regarding the longer-run economic outlook for the United States. It’s not too early to think comprehensively about an economic response plan.

Consider what’s happened already. Major Chinese regions have shut down crowd-generating activities, including mass transportation systems. Disney’s Asia theme parks are closed. South Korea closed a major auto producer where thousands are employed; Hong Kong shuttered schools; Taiwan, Japan, and others stopped travel from China; Italy quarantined areas and limited attendance at major sporting events; France closed the Louvre Museum. In just the last few days, the U.S. has closed off or cautioned citizens about travel to and from China, Iran, Italy, South Korea, and Japan.

All of this, and just plain risk aversion, limits the ability of people to get to work and for providers of goods and services to reach their customers. These curtailments, necessary as they may be, stop people from contributing to GDP (which is, of course, a crude measure of overall well-being). If the coronavirus disruption generates a recession, it will be because of grit caught in the wheels of commerce.

In an effort to brighten the picture, White House leaders have talked about pushing for tax cuts. In a sudden emergency session move, the Federal Reserve cut interest rates by 50 basis points. But while these actions may be beneficial, they are traditional recession-fighting instruments wielded against what would be a nontraditional recession, if it comes to pass.

We should recognize that the coronavirus disturbance is a different economic beast. The 2007-2008 recession was generated by heavy subprime mortgage lending and dwindling trust in critically related credit instruments when interest rates rose and a huge number of households faced bankruptcies; it was not about getting to work and shipping goods.

The 2001-2002 recession was triggered by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that disrupted air transportation and petroleum markets and set the nation on the road to war. A scan of other recessions in the last few decades tells us that they were, more often than not, associated with actions taken by the Fed to cool inflationary forces playing through the economy. Lowering rates and reducing taxes were part of a textbook approach for getting the economy out of a recessionary rut.

Once people are guarded from the virus, any resulting threat of recession must be approached differently. It’s about getting rid of the grit that limits the movement of people and goods and finding ways to relubricate the gears of commerce. It is not so much about money, credit, and banking.

It is more about freeing up rules that limit movement and communication, reducing certain kinds of taxes, and providing government-certifying services that assist organizations nationwide that will become engaged in decontamination and other virus-fighting activities.

Let’s take them one at time.

First and foremost, consider tariffs, quotas, and other U.S. self-imposed limitations on the international movement of goods and services. Past assumptions about trade limitations are obsolete. We should take action immediately to remove all recently imposed tariffs and quota trade limitations, even if temporarily — let us say at least for 36 months.

The fact that many people may be marooned at home and unable to get to work means that online work and home deliveries need to be facilitated. Hastening the development of 5G networks, perhaps by aggressively seeking out and eliminating the remaining barriers, is called for.

On taxes, we should consider significantly reducing the capital gains tax, perhaps temporarily to zero, so that operators of the nation’s enterprises who seek to redeploy production away from high-risk locations can sell some assets and make major new investments in software, hardware, and facilities.

Finally, our government should enable the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Food and Drug Administration to establish certification procedures for private providers of virus-elimination services. Extensive decontamination is underway; more will be needed. Certification would help to identify organizations that are prepared and equipped to provide these much-needed services.

And then there is the Fed. Given that we will likely experience significantly slower GDP growth, it makes sense to be willing to encourage construction and other longer-term investment activities by keeping interest rates low. However, in the coronavirus case, where work interruptions are apt to be involved, bankruptcies of small businesses will be a chief concern.

Thousands of small businesses stay in the black as long as customers are calling or walking in for services. In a scenario where a high percentage of people avoid contact with one another, those businesses can fold quickly. Thus, relationships between small business operators and banks become crucial. How banks can help to fill the breach is no simple matter, but a more sympathetic Fed and a beefed-up Small Business Administration can make a difference.

The consequences of the coronavirus are yet to be known. But we know enough to realize that if the situation gets much worse, conventional offsetting actions taken by the government will not do the job. This is the time to get serious about freeing up the wheels of commerce and knitting back an even-stronger economy.

Bruce Yandle is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. He is a distinguished adjunct fellow with the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and dean emeritus of the Clemson University College of Business & Behavioral Science. He developed the "Bootleggers and Baptists" political model.