Lockdowns and curfew

HAVING followed the advice and recommendations from the Ministry of Health on measures in respect of the rapid escalating COVID-19 situation in the Central Division, it has come as a rude shock, through the own admission of the chief health adviser, Dr Fong, that his advice was against a lockdown when cases of this deadly virus began to emerge.

He has gone on to defend his actions and has made attempts to define and differentiate “curfew” and “lockdown”.

Unfortunately, he quotes erroneously that Australia and NZ have not undergone a lockdown. Australia is a huge country and each State takes action according to its situation. In Sydney, after an initial few days of partial restrictions, the Premier has announced a complete lockdown for greater Sydney for 14 days. This affects over 5 million people. Earlier, the Australian Medical Association has chimed in suggesting NSW’s earlier decision for targeted partial lockdown was dangerous and had sent confusing messages to the people. The only reason people are allowed to move is to buy food, medicine, get vaccinated or exercise, of course under strict guidelines. In Northern Territory where one miner was tested positive, the entire operation, involving thousands of workers has been shut down. Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia and Queensland have had lockdowns resulting in the elimination of the virus within around 2-3 weeks.

I am now concerned about the competence of the Fiji medical authorities to provide appropriate advice for actions. It seems they don’t even take guidance from the experiences in Australia and NZ. I wonder how the Ausmed team will fare. I may even go further and say that the attribution or otherwise of so called COVID-19 deaths needs to be interpreted with a pinch of salt. And of course the problems compound the growing issues of misinformation, mistrust, hesitancy and confusion among people leading to a lack of decisive response to address this growing crisis.

ALTAUF CHAND Minto, NSW