I was one of those impatient for NCR to slip into MECQ and then GCQ; I was one of those who went huzzah, when GCQ finally happened; and yes, I was also one of those dreading a return to stricter grades of Q. But then,
this and this.
And now, despite
this, I’m think that we do need a time-out.
Why a time-out?
First, a time-out would maybe – just maybe – slow the spread of COVID19 – simply by taking people out of infective (I think I may have just made that word up) situations. No guarantee of that, of course, but a slim chance is better than no chance at all.
Second, a relapse into a stricter grade of Q might shock people into being more careful. Not to buy into that whole
pasaway theory, but I have seen people of late being less protective of themselves and others. I’ve even seen people seeming to take offense at the contact tracing and disinfection requirements instituted by commercial establishments. So, for those that have perhaps let their guard down, a brief foray into ECQ might not be a very a bad thing.
Third, I’ve always said that when a person tell you he is thirsty, the only acceptable response is to give him a glass of water. If the doctors and nurses and other medical frontliners tell us they’re tired, we should give them a rest. Although they probably meant that metaphorically in the beginning, I’m pretty sure that they’re also in deadly earnest: they are literally tired.
In all fairness, a time-out would not really deload (that word I definitely did not make up) medical frontliners, not in any significant way certainly. But a slowdown in transmission rate would necessarily imply a reduced rate of admissions and that will, for sure, be a boon for doctors.
Fourth, it’s not just the people needing a break. Hospitals and other medical facilities too are likely in drastic need of breathing room by now. I don’t know what the metric actually is, but if hospitals are reporting full ICUs, then yeah, man, that’s a problem. While a majority of those afflicted by COVID are fortunate enough to be able to survive it with minimal intervention, there still remains a significant fraction of persons who suffer really badly. These patients need ICU facilities, ventilators, and really, round the clock monitoring. If the hospitals are full up, where do we send those who need hospitalization?
With a time-out, many of these hospitals would be able to rebuild capacity, primarily by opening up new COVID wards – a process that takes time, by the way – or simply making new beds available. Can’t they do this without a time-out? If push came to shove, I have no doubt that people can find ways, but jury-rigged solutions like that are inevitably going to be flawed and likely to be more costly in the long run than if we simply took the time to do everything properly.
And fifth, a time out would allow government to rebuild capacity as well. Maybe build more isolation centers, or something. At the very least, a lockdown would give the relevant authorities time to build and certify more testing centers in various places throughout the country.
The other side
As of this writing, I’m seeing tweets excoriating the government for, I guess, ignoring the pleas of the medical professionals. I haven’t seen anything official to that effect, but let’s just say for the sake of argument that it did. Why might that be?
The economic argument seems to be the government’s main thing. We need the economy up and running, so the argument goes, especially now when we’re struggling to recover from the effects of the previous ECQs. Leaving aside the question of whose fault
that was, the fact remains that this does sound like a valid argument.
Studies have shown that prematurely releasing containment, i.e., lifting the quarantine early, initially brings about a boost to the economy which quickly vanishes as the concomitant jump in infections saps public confidence and they refuse to go out and patronize businesses anyway. Without seeing any of the country’s economic indicators, I think that maybe we’re still in the boost phase of the post-containment period, and that we’re now seeing that concomitant jump in infections. Which means that reduced public confidence is probably starting to kick in (I know it has for me).
If that’s so, then maybe the economic argument be a little weak. If we’re anticipating that public confidence in the economy is going to bottom out, then what economic recovery are we actually protecting? Out in the streets, I hear some people using that old aphorism:
aanhin pa ang damo, kung patay na ang kabayo?
Let’s face it: this new wave of infections has only exacerbated the public’s mistrust of government. And maybe a timeout now could go a long way in repairing that breach. And if public confidence is restored by government doing something that a significant segment of the nation is calling for, then maybe that can be the first step in some sort of economic recovery.
But what about the people who will again be deprived of their livelihoods if we return to a lockdown? Surprisingly, it’s the most at risk populations that raise this very valid objection to a time-out. Which just underscores the heart breaking reality that poverty really does limit a person’s options.
Thus far, government has addressed this problem with dole-outs, and it has all but tapped out the coffers, leading to even more foreign borrowing. Worse, it has even expressed interest in taxing the one activity that has become a badly needed additional source of income for people – online selling. So if a time-out were to be imposed, how could it be done, keeping in mind the plight of those who stand to be, once again, unemployed.
To be honest, it probably speaks to my privilege that I have difficulty imagining a better argument than “it’s gonna save lives!” Having said that, I think a graduated return to quarantine might be a good compromise. And instead of a blanket quarantine, imposed on everyone everywhere at the same time, government might consider ramping up its (apparently) present policy of smart containment, i.e., neighborhoods are locked down and reopened as the epidemic waxes and wanes in those areas.
Here’s the link to a good
WorldBank blog on smart containment. Properly implemented, a responsive smart containment strategy – which will require more creativity and out-of-the-box thinking than we’ve shown so far – could be developed to protect the most economically vulnerable among us.
One example: government could impose containment measures on at-risk populations within a city, while allowing those under less or minimal risk unrestricted movement. Thus, while those who are most likely to transmit the virus are kept at home, everyone else gets to continue earning a living and spending. The same kind of solution can be found within industries. Take PUV drivers for instance – the elderly and sickly drivers could be kept out of the jeepneys, while the ones less likely to get sick continue to ply their trade. Again, this is what we’re doing now, but we have to be more aggressive about it.
All-Nation approach
In the end, there is no denying the need for some kind of time-out. And it helps no one to ignore or criticize or shame (looking at you, social media trolls) those calling for one. We adhere to an all-government approach, do we not? Well, it should be an all-nation approach and that means listening to everyone with a good idea, or a valid sentiment, or a legitimate complaint. You never know where the good solution we are all looking for, might be found. It could be in a textbook, or in some best practice from overseas, or it might come from simply listening to each other. So let’s listen.
Time-out muna.
