SA’s balancing act works
There is a Setswana saying that goes “Ke kgomo ya moshata, wa e gapa o molato, wa e lesa o molato”, loosely translated as “damned if you do, damned if you don’t”. As the country goes hurtling down to lockdown Level 3, this is the position that President Cyril Ramaphosa and his government find themselves in.
They cannot do anything right in the eyes of the greater majority of the citizens. And opposition parties are not letting them off the hook.
The Economic Freedom Fighter’s (EFF) Mbuyiseni Ndlozi has been the most brutal on social media, harking back to the president’s murky involvement in the Marikana massacre, with the suggestion that the decision to open up the economy is tantamount to sending people to their slaughter. Ndlozi’s below-thebelt shots go as low as suggesting the country’s lockdown was designed “benefit white people”.
It doesn’t help that government continues to shoot itself in the foot with embarrassing pussyfooting around the opening of schools or the annoying, hair-splitting enforcement of the tobacco ban. Even the currently unattached Mmusi Maimane has found openings to throw punches at Basic Education Minister Angie Motshekga’s last-minute cancellation of a press conference as the “highest level of disrespect, disgraceful and disorganised”.
But is all this criticism justified? Should more people die (than currently projected) due to the opening up of the economy, will the president have wilfully sent thousands to their deaths? Is there anything more the government could have done and chosen not to do?
At this point, it is helpful to revisit the basic aim of the lockdown and the scientific reasoning behind it. Like most viruses, Covid-19’s spread is exponential, always doubling if there is no intervention. Mathematically, if there had been no lockdown the number of infected people in South Africa would be in the millions by now. That is a scientific fact.
The number of recorded infections right now is about 30 000, with even fever active cases.
The lockdown kept the numbers low. The most important part of it, besides slowing down the infection rate, was to buy the government time to prepare for the inevitable: high numbers of infected people seeking hospital beds and ventilators at the same time. The preparations were based on scientific projections. In other words, the lockdown achieved its two main aims.
The last question that needs to be answered before deciding if Ramaphosa and his government have led the nation to a massacre is: could they have kept the total lockdown for longer? Any South African who knows the conditions of those living from hand-to-mouth knows the only answer to that is a definite no!
People who live on daily earnings are a substantial part of this economy and a strict business-prohibitive lockdown longer than the current 60 days plus would have been inhumane and in the long run, deadly. It would achieve exactly what EFF leader Julius Malema and Ndlozi believe is going to happen over the next couple of months. Citizens will clash with the police, resulting in tragic deaths.
The science says the government did well and that SA may have done better than a host of First World countries with better resources.
The science says the government did well and that SA may have done better than a host of First World countries with better resources.