More planning, patience needed to make GCQ work
ALTHOUGH everyone was hoping for the best, the first two days of general community quarantine (GCQ) were, to no one’s surprise, chaotic and difficult for many people. It was evident that no one concerned — the government, businesses or the general public — was quite prepared for the start of the “new normal,” and that a great deal of adjustment will have to be made before it can be considered safe and productive.
The most obvious problem, and the one that was most widely reported, was the severe lack of transportation available for commuters, many of whom were forced to wait for hours in some areas or resort to walking long distances to reach their places of employment. To be fair to the relevant authorities — the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board, the Metro Manila Development Authority and the Department of Transportation — information and updates about which forms of public transportation would be allowed to operate and in what manner were regularly provided to the public beginning early last week.
The problem, however, was an obvious disconnect between supply and demand. It was clear that limitations on public transportation are necessary in order to maintain public safety and try to prevent the potential spread of the novel coronavirus, but the limiting measures seem to have been based only on the safety considerations without considering the actual volume or locations of passengers that need to be moved. It is also possible that planners overestimated the impact of rules limiting the on-site staff of businesses to 50 percent of normal or, likewise overestimated the number of people who would be able to work from home.
Relieving the issue to allow more people who need to commute to do so safely will require a greater degree of coordination than has been done so far, beginning with determining actual transportation demand. It will be impossible to satisfy everyone, of course, without sacrificing the careful measures to protect people from infection which, after all, should continue to be the priority. But gathering more input from businesses and the public could help to provide a more effective system.
Another serious problem that became apparent almost as soon as long- shuttered businesses opened on Monday morning was that measures intended to maintain physical distancing in some cases led to situations where the risk of infection was actually increased due to crowds gathering. Essential businesses such as grocery stores, pharmacies and bank branches that have been operating during ECQ ( enhanced community quarantine) have had time to work out managing people to keep them safe, but many businesses that are just as essential to many people but have been unavailable until this week evidently have not, either through a lack of planning or simply being located in areas where physical distancing is practically impossible. Examples of these types of businesses observed by our readers and correspondents include money transfer centers, parcel shipping businesses, computer and electronic shops, bookstores and hardware and household goods stores, among others.
Just as with the transportation challenge, it would be dangerous and irresponsible to simply forego physical distancing precautions, but if those precautions lead to situations that defeat their purpose, they need to be reassessed. Applying the same rules to all businesses is impractical as the results have shown. By the same token, businesses need to exercise some imagination and do what they can to relieve such issues on their own such as by implementing queuing or appointment systems for their customers where feasible.
And finally, the public must be reminded, again, that GCQ does not mean “normal” and that venturing out in public unnecessarily is not only a very bad idea, it is still largely prohibited under the guidelines currently in place. Allowing more businesses to open and people to move about with relative freedom for work or essential errands is a necessity to support livelihoods and the overall economy that have been punished by two- and- a- half months of virtual lockdown, but it is, at best, a compromise in a public health crisis that is in no way diminished. Staying home, unless it is absolutely necessary to go out, is still the best choice; we urge everyone to do so.