Most governments are struggling to react to COVID-19. What contingency plans were in place, by those constantly self-praising themselves, to handle widespread national emergencies of this kind? Truth is, old certainties begin to look like a house of cards during a profound crisis.
Time is needed to study an invisible threat but governments could have prepared themselves, before 2020, when the writing about pandemics was on the wall for several years.
The pertinent question now is whether proactive measures will be implemented to avoid another crisis from disrupting economies and destroying lives.
Studies should ask why is it so difficult for most communities to trust their politicians and governments. This is often the reason for people not following rules, in this case wearing masks properly, sanitising hands regularly, maintaining social distancing and not congregating.
Efficient governments take proactive measures and are, hence, bound to garner more trust from people. Inevitable ‘chaos’ from implementing emergency measures would be more organised and proper law enforcement would monitor safety measures and penalise the unruly, such as those forming illegal congregations. A population’s quality of life would be left more intact. No section of the population would be required to stay home for weeks on end, raising incidents of domestic violence and divorce.
Indeed, efficient governance can go a long way in making any pandemic not too painful for its people. There would also be less hidden deaths, such as suicides arising from economic failure, loneliness or grief. Hidden deaths also arise from delayed healthcare to people either by their own choice to avoid hospitals or because systems become overwhelmed.
But the world is imperfect, people are fallible and, sadly, many politicians are incompetent or corrupt or both. Expecting governments to be efficient and protect the well-being of its people can be a tall order. Some even favour populist decisions over those based on science and expertise.
Efficient governments close borders if and when infections start to rise, unless reliable tests exist with instant results. Locking down an entire population with curfews is necessary when an (inefficient) government is not readily equipped for a pandemic or when its people cannot be trusted to follow safety rules. Governments should examine themselves in this case.
On the bright side, those countries banning alcohol experienced a substantial reduction in crime as well as deaths from road accidents. And the cleaner air in some notoriously polluted cities seems correlated with reduced lung-related diseases, yet another reason for governments to examine themselves. How much is the economic ‘progress’ for its people and the obsession with creating inflation worth compromising the well-being of the same people?
Leaders sometimes think like economists who grapple with tradeoffs between money and life, as repugnant as this sounds. Luckily, they also know too well that if a virus is allowed to spread it would crash economies more than any lockdown, which, in turn, will lead to human tragedies.
The pertinent question now is whether proactive measures will be implemented to avoid another crisis- Malcolm Scerri-Ferrante
Border lockdowns would be less feared if governments stop wasting monies through incompetence and corruption. Efficient governments can afford a healthy reserve fund to help its people and industries affected by extraordinary circumstances.
It is convenient for inefficient governments to blame COVID-19 deaths and hardships on ‘bad luck’ or ‘the damn virus’, just as easy it is to blame cancer on the draw of the cards or a DNA disposition. The truth is many deaths are not as uncontrollable as they are made to seem.
Aside from ignoring general pandemic warnings pre-2020, to exasperate matters some governments ignored clear signs of COVID-19 heading their way. When alarm bells rang early last year, a lot of time was lost from implementing adequate measures and educating citizens. The UK and the US, ironically two of the most advanced nations in the world, are guilty of this.
Other blunders followed as many governments convinced themselves that the second wave cannot be worse than the first, even if it was indisputable that winter is an ideal climate for this virus to thrive and spread. Some countries took little notice of the advice of their own respected medical associations or authorities. Such are the inefficiencies of us humans when plan continuation bias reigns, the unconscious cognitive bias known to be responsible for preventable disasters.
Politicians who consider themselves honourable should think more proactively about future health threats. While the world should lobby against China for consistently operating certain risky open markets, politicians should apply a holistic approach and question why many immune systems are struggling with this virus while others are not.
Are our available food choices almost chock-full of processed items? Is there adequate education, starting from schools, for people to understand the benefits of eating healthy and unprocessed foods? Are we enforcing regulation to prevent farmers from using pesticides excessively?
Thinking more broadly about other illnesses that are already a global crisis, is it not time to start taking seriously the risks of carcinogens in our foods and the pollution in our air? When, in 2015, the World Health Organisation issued a health warning about the direct correlation of red meat with cancer, Malta’s prime minister was quick to tweet his concern as a policymaker. And rightly so. But what policy changes took place since then and how effective have they been?
Those politicians willing to put actions to words can create a legacy by aiming beyond their own generation and away from their self-interests. They must implement policies whereby our children and the next generation can truly enjoy a better quality of life.
Building better immune systems must become an integral part of every country’s health policy without further delay.
Malcolm Scerri-Ferrante is a film-maker.