Such public comment as has been expressed over the decision to push back the boundaries of the COVID-19 curfew and – perhaps more importantly —to re-open the country’s two international airports, is altogether understandable. These decisions have been made, one assumes, on the basis of what, hopefully, is measured judgement rather than any kind of certainty regarding their likely longer-term outcomes, this being a function of our painfully limited understanding of the pandemic, its behaviour patterns and how to contain or treat it. Put differently, we cannot predict the likely outcomes of either adjusting the curfew hours or re-opening the airports. Those can go either way.
One of the other big challenges which the authorities face (and we have said this before) reposes in the limited effectiveness of the policing mechanisms attached to what are now known to be two of the rules of thumb in seeking to limit the spread of the virus, the wearing of masks and social distancing. Here in Guyana, regrettably, part of the difficulty associated with managing the pandemic is a chronic lack of self-discipline within sections of the population. The authorities, manifestly, have, from the inception, done a less than satisfactory job in rolling back the various pockets of public indiscipline as part of the national response to COVID-19.
All of this has been raised before in previous pieces in this newspaper though it does no harm to remind not just that the situation remains unchanged but that this is a situation in which the success or lack thereof of the measures that are applied depend to an overwhelming extent on compliance therewith. Mind you, one might add, that there is a not inconsiderable body of opinion that subscribes to the view that there are instances in which the authorities appear indifferent – to say the least – to selected transgressions of the curfews. If and where those claims are justifiable then it is for the authorities to understand that indifference to diligent policing of its own strictures amounts to shooting itself in the foot.
COVID-19 is not simply an immediate-term life or death issue for us. It weighs heavily on the longer-term development of the country which is precisely why a serious and ongoing public discourse on the pandemic ought to be national in its character. The successful management of the COVID-19 pandemic cannot and will not be realized solely through the application of the edict of the state. It has to embrace the views of the public as well. Though it has long been manifest that government cannot manage this crisis on its own there has been nowhere near enough evidence, from the very inception of the pandemic, of a serious level of public consultation.
The pushing back of the curfew hours and the reopening of the airport are, presumably, intended to create a greater sense of balance between the retention of a rein on such excesses as might increase the levels of contraction and fatalities, on the one hand, and the creation of some measure of ventilation through which the economy and the society as a whole can exhale, on the other. This, for the most part, has been government’s call. It needs to understand, therefore, that it ignores public opinion, particularly, as part of that decision-making process, at its own peril.
This is as good a point as any at which to address the issue of the re-opening of the country’s two international airports. Entirely understandably, the public chatter arising out of the recent decisions that have been made about the virus, has revolved largely around the re-opening of the airports. Here again, one suspects that the public anxiety about the re-opening is whether the authorities can effectively put in place such measures as are necessary to prevent the ‘importation’ of further cases of COVID-19 into Guyana. Here, regrettably, public concern derives from an inherent lack of trust in the reliability of certain types of measures for which the state is responsible for implementing and managing. As it happens we now know enough about COVID-19 to have a sense of the possible glitches in the application and policing of the strictures to understand the consequences thereof.
One makes this point to say to the authorities that such decisions as it makes in relation to the reopening of the country’s international airports carry with them a corresponding responsibility to rigidly police those strictures and that in circumstances where so much is at stake, after-the-fact bureaucratic responses to incompetence and/or a lack of sound judgement that results in deleterious consequences will not ‘wash.‘ The fact of the matter is that the normalization of international flights in and out of Guyana will be seen, understandably so, as a potential loophole for the further ‘importation’ of COVID-19 into Guyana. This mindset will apply, whatever the official reassurances, if only for the reason that public confidence in official policing of the rules is low. Frankly, the view has existed for some time that official assurances on matters pertaining to the pandemic cannot necessarily be taken at face value, because of what are perceived to be known limitations in our testing and treatment capabilities. Nothing has changed in that regard…which is precisely why we proceed with our management of COVID-19, to a large extent ‘on a wing and a prayer’ and in the absence of certainties brought about by our own pockets of national indiscipline and a state apparatus that frequently appears to be decidedly deficient in its ability to properly manage the effective application of rules and strictures in times like these.
Finally, in a society where serious national issues can become cynically transformed into unadulterated political theatre, we begin by assuming that last week’s generous media coverage of the distribution of face masks in downtown Georgetown by Prime Minister Mark Phillips as a kind of ‘kicking off’ of what has been termed Operation COVI-CURB is reflective of a serious initiative to tackle, as best we can, the challenges posed by the pandemic, by targeting the poorest and by extension, the most vulnerable sections of the society. Since it is reasonable to assume that COVI-CURB derives from some structured, thought out plan, public appreciation of its sense of purpose could be considerably enhanced if an outline of its strategy, its focus and its targets/goals are made publicly available quickly. That could avoid COVI-CURB being dismissed as more political theatre in which case it will disappear like chaff in the wind of public cynicism.
