There was something chillingly blunt about what appeared to be as much an admonition as a warning from the resident representative of WHO/PAHO, Dr William Adu-Krow, a few days ago, about what he appears to believe has been a dangerously delinquent public response to the strongly recommended ‘social distancing’ urging in the face of the current rampaging coronavirus.
It is not in the nature of representatives of international organisations to make what one might call indelicate statements regarding situations in host countries, so that Dr Adu-Krow’s pronouncement which, frankly, pulled few punches, would have been the product of his understanding of just how seriously his principals view the global COVID-19 situation. To that must be added what one is persuaded is a certain conviction on his part that sections of our population are nowhere near toeing the line insofar as the social-distancing warning that would have been issued directly by the World Health Organization, is concerned.
If it is that Dr. Adu-Krow is indicating that up until now sections of our population (we are not in a position to speak for the entire country) are seriously delinquent in their lack of adherence to the social distancing urging, then this newspaper’s observation is that his concern is justified. There does not appear to be anything resembling a distinct and deliberate sense of adherence to the social distancing refrain in some public places of entertainment and some of the other routine gathering spots. Those that have been instituted in some workplaces can clearly be improved upon.
To take gatherings in places of business (supermarkets and stores, for example), while one expects that the necessity to ‘do business’ will, to some extent, militate against complete social distancing, we can surely have enforceable protocols that not only limit the number of persons in the same (business) space at the same time but insist on periodic cessation of service (whatever that service might be) altogether to allow for some measure of sanitization before another ‘wave’ of customers is allowed to occupy that space. There has been no evidence, up until now, at least as far as this newspaper is aware, that such protocols are in place or even if they are, that they are being enforced.
One of the major problems that would affect Guyana in a circumstance such as this is the difficulty which we frequently appear to have in regulating ourselves in situations that require particular modes of behaviour. Accordingly, compliance must almost always be attended by a certain level of enforcement. The problem here is that our enforcement mechanisms are weak and usually ineffective. Where there are usually perfectly good reasons for compliance in one situation or another, defiance is often rooted in positions that have to do with nothing more than people’s assertion of their right to do as they please, all too often indifferent to the fact that the exercise of that ‘right’ could impact the well-being of others.
In circumstances like those that have been created by the advent of the coronavirus we witness, regrettably, propensities towards insularity, opportunism, misplaced self-regulation and other traits that point to an insensitivity to the collective, the nation in this instance. Nowhere, recently, was this trait more manifested than in the sudden outbreak of a rash of unwholesome business practices including hoarding and price gouging, targeting items that were perceived to have undergone a sharp rise in demand in response to the outbreak of the virus. What was particularly significant was the fact that our Business Support Organisations did not appear (based on their public posture and pronouncements) to have any particularly strong views on these practices.
The issue that arises here, of course, has to do with whether or not, what may now constitute a national emergency does not now call for enforcement measures to ensure a greater level of adherence to social distancing.
The forms of enforcement that might be practicable and whether or not the very fact of compulsoriness may not give rise to a heightened level of pushback are questions that have to be considered in the light of what the WHO/PAHO representative has had to say. Part of the response reposes, it would seem, in a significantly enhanced, continuous and professionally executed (here, the latter requirement is of particular importance) public education programme that has as its purpose the creation of an enhanced level of public compliance with the requirement of social distancing and the various other protocols that could help check the spread of the infection. Here, there is very much a role for businesses and Business Support Organisations which, evidently, are going to be important players in the enforcement process. The state agencies, including the Ministry of Public Health should not allow themselves to be persuaded that they can do this alone.
Uppermost in the minds of those agencies and individuals who are responsible for planning and implementation must be the reality that the clock has drifted past midnight and that what must be done has to be shorn of the prevarication and palaver and that ever so often attends matters that require the application of generous measures of expediency.
