Many government critics are taking the spike in COVID-19 infections to mean that the government should be listening exclusively to the health authorities. Robert Abela protests that, as prime minister, his responsibility is to protect both lives and livelihoods. But while whether he’s responsibly protecting public health is up for debate, there’s little doubt the current tourism strategy is bad risk management.
Strangely enough, it’s not the public health issues that the government has gotten seriously wrong (more on why in a moment). It’s the international politics.
Behind both those statements lies the fact that we know very little for certain about how best to face this pandemic. Social distancing, hand washing and masks are important. Noisy environments seem more harmful (noise makes people shout, with infected particles likely to travel farther). There isn’t much beyond that on which you should bet your savings.
The high uncertainty has a political dimension. Without knowing enough about the virus, there can be no vaccine. No vaccine, no end to the pandemic in sight.
With no end in sight, governments must open up their economies. Otherwise, they risk losing their healthcare systems by having the financial bottom fall out. Since too little is known they have to open up on a trial and error basis.
The key is not to avoid making mistakes. That’s impossible. It’s to test on a limited basis and to reverse errors quickly. It’s government by risk management.
In these conditions, however, there is a market for blame. Across the world, opposition politicians blame governments for spikes, flare-ups and second waves. Governments blame opposition politicians for frustrating rational decision-making.
And – this is important – governments also blame other foreign governments. In particular they are quick to take preventive action on travel. Irrespective of what the solid facts are, they dispense discouraging advice and impose quarantines and bans.
Back to Malta. From a strictly public health point of view, was it crazy for the government to advertise Malta as the island of fun in the sea of doldrums? It was certainly risky. Drunk youth partying in a noisy environment? It does sound like something an embedded Al-Qaeda agent would dream up to wipe out debauched Europe.
But all experiments carry some risk. There are flare-ups across Europe and they’re inevitable. The issue is to determine whether the decision needs to be reversed.
The real risk is that Malta will be seen as threatening to export the virus back to Europe via returning clubbers
The key is one thing we haven’t been told yet (up till the time of writing): the current reproduction rate of infections (excluding irregular immigrants under detention; for while they are relevant to determine the pressure on the health system’s infrastructure, the policy of detention and isolation makes their number irrelevant to the question).
The real risk is that Malta will be seen as threatening to export the virus back to Europe via returning clubbers
Any debate that omits the reproductive rate isn’t sufficiently informative. The rate indicates the trend. The Malta Medical Association is right to insist that waiting times for testing are relevant too, since long waiting times could lead to serious underestimates of the rate of infection.
But graphs showing reported infections aren’t as useful. If you’re starting from low numbers, you can end up with a visually dramatic spike, even though the patient numbers and reproduction rate could still be manageable.
If the health professionals’ fears are supported by the reproduction rate, then they would be right to insist on the reversal of the current policy. It would be crazy not to.
The prime minister’s argument that current patients are not suffering greatly is sophistry. The issue is not just about current patients, who may be young. It’s about the elderly in their families who will suffer, either directly, or indirectly by being isolated from family members for another stretch of time.
So that, essentially, is why I believe the public health aspect of the decision is still up for debate. Only the reproductive rate can shut that down.
The political-economic strategic aspect, however, is something else. A distinctive policy that goes against the grain was bound to attract international attention.
It didn’t take long for the BBC to turn its spotlight on Malta’s marketing. Lithuania has imposed a travel ban until the middle of this month. Latvia and Ireland are advising their citizens not to travel here.
Abela has himself pointed out that the infection numbers (with migrants included) are being used by fellow member states to take decisions on tourist travel. But should he have been surprised?
Governments across Europe are taking decisions in the expectation of a second wave in the autumn. They need to show their voters they are doing everything necessary to avert another shutdown.
It is in this context that Malta’s festivals will be interpreted. It will not just be in terms of how safe Malta is to visit.
The real risk is that Malta will be seen as threatening to export the virus back to Europe via returning clubbers.
Forget fact-based argument. It will all be about perception: the reinforcement of an image of Malta that embarks on all the high-risk economic activities – from money-laundering to passport sales and, now, to ‘COVID-clubbing’ – that put the rest of Europe at the risk of contagion.
That’s one huge gamble to take with the strategic interests of Maltese livelihoods. I’d like to hear the argument for taking it.
If there isn’t one, then our problem isn’t that we have a prime minister who thinks he knows more about public health than the doctors. It’s that he doesn’t know enough about politics.
ranierfsadni@europe.com