Robert Abela can be criticised for several things he’s done or hasn’t done since the outbreak of the corona-virus. But the criticism that he has publicly contradicted the advice given by Charmaine Gauci, the Superintendent of Public Health, is worse than unfair. It’s hysterical and displays a shaky understanding of the range of health issues raised by the pandemic.
Cards on the table, first. I am following all the guidelines of the health authorities, and then adding some of my own. I insist my elderly relatives should stay inside. I leave the house as little as possible, batching my shopping. I give wide berth to people I come across on the pavement, walking in the middle of the street if necessary. I leave my shoes and jacket by the door when I’m back in. I wipe down all the food packaging as well as my glasses.
In case you’re wondering, I don’t think the virus is even more infectious than we’re being told. The extra rituals are for psychological purposes. They keep me alert. They remind me to wash my hands the moment I cross the threshold.
If I momentarily lose focus, it’s the unnecessary rules that are broken, not the essential ones. Instead of depending on willpower and memory for everything I should do, I’ve ritualised the guidelines and made them automatic and equipped with safety catches.
So, yes, I’m all for the science and the tips that experimental psychology offers to help us stick to the guidelines. But, as far as I can see, so is the prime minister. It’s his critics who have a narrow understanding of the science.
The charges against Abela are mainly two. One is that by telling people – in an interview – that they can go out for exercise or a run, he was contradicting the same-day advice by Gauci to stay inside.
Another is that he gave people a false sense of security by saying he’s satisfied with the health management of the virus, when the numbers of confirmed cases are expected to rise (and indeed have risen since he gave that interview).
Let’s take the first criticism. It was not the first time he told TV viewers they could go out for exercise or a run. He did it at the end of March as well – adding that if they did so they should practise social distancing, going out on their own.
There’s a second danger we hear less about: that we emerge from this pandemic as a bossier and more paternalistic society
Even if he hadn’t given that earlier interview, he would not have been contradicting Gauci. Her advice to stay at home, as much as possible, is not ‘scientific advice’; it’s good sense based on science, which is different.
Given the uniqueness of every person’s health vulnerabilities, all advice must be tempered with good sense. Gauci was primarily addressing the needs of the most vulnerable groups.
Abela spoke of going for a run, which makes it unlikely he had over-65s and asthmatics in mind.
For some people, going out for a walk or a drive is as essential as going shopping – for psychological as much as physical health. Falling into a depression or entering a spiral of household tensions because of confinement is a health concern as well.
Other countries have addressed outdoor exercise sensibly. In Belgium, for example, you may go out for exercise but you may only be accompanied by members of your own household. You will be fined if caught on a picnic or outside your municipality.
Permitting exercise but regulating it, strictly, is the sensible way, given that we don’t know when confinement will end. For those confined, psychological exercises are as necessary as physical exercises. Over a long period, lack of sufficient social contact may end up extracting a heavy toll on the mental capacities of our elderly population.
The second major criticism made of Abela is that he’s giving people a false sense of security by speaking optimistically of the health management. That’s a strange criticism to make of a prime minister who has approved the urgent building of a prefabricated hospital to deal with extra cases.
There are legitimate questions about how that hospital is being procured. But there’s no doubting that the hospital is being built because the number of confirmed cases is expected to spike over the coming weeks – something Abela has himself explicitly referred to.
What’s wrong with all the criticism is not that it’s contradicted by the facts. It’s that it can actually make things worse.
First, it’s one thing to make addressing virus infections the top priority. It’s another to forget that social distancing and confinement have an independent toll on health. We should be empowering people to make sensible decisions about their behaviour, and punishing carelessness; not imposing rules that can only be kept with iron willpower and which could, in any case, be bad for some people’s physical and mental health.
Second, there is a hysteria to this criticism that has a political dimension. We’re hearing a lot about how some governments are taking advantage of the pandemic to satisfy authoritarian urges that they’ve always had.
But there’s a second danger we hear less about: that we emerge from this pandemic as a bossier and more paternalistic society, which caps preferences with the halo of science, and disguises political disagreement as moral outrage.