Lockdown is beyond doubt, but execution is not

Many of us were hoping that after the botched demonetisation exercise and the shoddy implementation of the GST regime, the Union government would have learnt that major executive calls require better planning. Sadly, the present lockdown proves the Centre has failed to understand the issues and implications of this pandemic.

The US may enjoy some degree of protection from the oceans. But when you share a land border with China, the onus is on Prime Minister Narendra Modi to act early, and act decisively.

With 70 days to prepare, the public expected better from the Union government. Whether history will be kind to the NDA government on this issue remains to be seen, but announcing a 21-day lockdown with no notice and nominal planning does not lay the groundwork for a robust strategy. What data did the government base this decision on? With marginal disease testing capacity and negligible testing overall, it would have had no accurate measure of the spread within India.

The Prime Minister needs to explain why he could only provide a four-hour notice of the shutdown. Did he foresee a raging pandemic that, uncontrolled, would flatten our cities and villages in a matter of days? This is no doubt a serious pandemic, but one that develops momentum in weeks and months, not in days. There was still time to plan that the government did not avail. The principle of a lockdown is beyond doubt, as events worldwide have proven that social distancing is necessary to contain the spread of this disease. But the execution measures have left much to be desired.

TRANSITION PERIOD WAS NEEDED

The government could have announced a transition period of seven to 10 days that would have allowed families to reunite and to plan for their homes for the duration of the lockdown. Businesses could have planned an orderly shutdown and not be counting the huge costs of sudden process failure for want of manpower.

Migrant labour could have returned to their families in an orderly manner. Essential services could have obtained permits to continue operations. Local authorities could have better catered for feeding the poor. Traders could have adjusted logistics so that perishables did not rot and goods were not left stuck on our roads and railways, awaiting looters. Ordinary citizens would have been better prepared.

DETAIL THE OBJECTIVES

The state administrations should have been given clearer operating procedures and thus avoid the daily fiasco of revised local guidelines. Apart from slowing down the spread of the disease, the Centre has failed to detail the objectives of the lockdown.

What are the numerical targets for antigen testing? What is the testing strategy for the hotspots? After all, capacity deficiencies do not limit a focused approach. Where is the governmental support for developing indigenous antibody testing?

Where is the urgent enhancement of intensive care hospital beds, and the purchase of critical equipment? The countries that have managed better are those that have tested extensively as only this can reveal the true scale of the problem. Yet even now, several days into the lockdown, we have failed to test most hospital patients and key medical professionals. Without the confidence that comes from testing, the absenteeism of our frontline medical professionals will continue to increase.

The coronavirus morbidity and mortality data published by the government is that for proven cases alone. A majority of the cases are excluded. In a country where 1.12 lakh people perish each day a few hundred coronavirus deaths may not be that obvious in the absence of testing. While some of India can socially distance, most can’t. Their housing does not allow them to and it is the escape to school or work that achieves for them effective social distancing. Confining the same family indoors in tight spaces means potential rapid spread within the family and to the neighbours.

TEST AND ISOLATE

The minimal objective for the lockdown should have been to test and isolate all persons displaying symptoms, to home quarantine their families, to test all hospital patients and health workers, but there is no evidence that these are the government’s objectives.

Consequently, at the end of the lockdown the disease will still be prevalent in the community, possibly spreading at a slower rate, but still sufficiently embedded to ensure that we rapidly return to square one, necessitating another lockdown.

The Prime Minister owes the public a fuller explanation.

ANNOUNCING A 21-DAY LOCKDOWN WITH NO NOTICE AND NOMINAL PLANNING DOES NOT LAY THE GROUNDWORK FOR A ROBUST STRATEGY