Why is GCQ extension up to March 31 only?
IT’S good that the President has lengthened the general community quarantine (GCQ) classification for Metro Manila and some provinces except that his reason for doing it appears to be — with all due respect — one-dimensional.
As I did in my letter to Malacañang, may I suggest: “Let GCQ remain until at least 30 percent of the nation’s population [especially in greater risk areas] have received the vaccine and not until the government kicks off its vaccination drive. For all we know, the drive itself may trigger a new spread of the virus and more ‘apprehensions’ among our people as surveys would indicate.” Why is the extension up to March 31 only?
Many times, according to Edward Simmons, “The difference between success and failure lies in doing a thing nearly right and doing it exactly right.”
Without treating the cancer, whatever doctors will advise the patient to relieve him/her of the painful symptoms of cancer, the relief is temporary, and the advice is inconsequential to the real situation. It’s just a matter of time or a short period before the patient will succumb and expire.
The government is unable to control/manage crowds even under GCQ, apparently. So, what do our officials exactly mean when they say modified general community quarantine (MGCQ)? Quarantine names are not as important as what the government is actually doing. We may call it GCQ or MGCQ, but both could practically mean the same thing because the Inter-Agency Task Force for the Management of Emerging Infectious Diseases that coined the names and gave their meanings is flexibly free to implement even all the “statutes” under MGCQ but still may call it GCQ. As of late, it was reported that the government is eyeing to reopen more industries under GCQ and do away with the Covid-19 test for travelers in a bid to lift local tourism.
Who wants our economy to be too battered by coronavirus? And who doesn’t want life to normalize in order that businesses can resume operations for people to go back to offices and for the nation’s economy to soon recover? Nobody. But be that as it may, in light of the MGCQ proposal, ideas and realities are worlds apart from each other. Why hasten “recovery” (or further relapse into illness)? Every country has its own peculiar stage of the pandemic, and we have our own. Hence, let’s not compare the Philippines to a handful of other countries that have the most relaxed quarantine rules and do as they do.
Although I’ve been into business for over 35 years now, I’m more concerned about overcoming or defeating Covid-19 for our people and nation than the welfare and transitory condition of my business. If the concern, really, is for the jobless and hungry, let the super rich and superwealthy in our land volunteer to do their collective share of “momentary sacrifice” (in favor of hungry Filipinos and to solve our pandemic problem) until the coronavirus is contained expeditiously and for good.
It will not take the ultrarich citizens of our country to “sacrifice” even a fraction of what two South Korean billionaires Kim Beom-su and Kim Bong-un have pledged to give away (half of their wealth) in order to help solve social issues and the coronavirus pandemic worldwide as freshly reported in Yahoo news. Kim and his wife Bomi Sul said in their statement, “We are certain that this pledge is the greatest inheritance that we could provide for our children.”
Why, indeed, sacrifice the poor and needy to gratify the avaricious?
Acting Socioeconomic Planning Secretary Karl Kendrick Chua has counseled Malacañang to proclaim a MGCQ status for the entire country to revive much of the nation’s businesses and economic activities in order “to pull us all out” of the economic rut, wrought by the lockdown. As though Covid-19 is not far from over and as if there is no new and highly contagious United Kingdom variant of Covid-19 already creeping into our communities. The trouble with the blind MGCQ proposition is that it is more of an “economic protocol’ than “health protocol,” which aims to solve the “spin-off problems” (or symptoms) and not the main problem.
I am neither a health expert nor an economic guru. But to be able to look at things as they are and see reality requires neither a doctorate degree nor a government position.
Here’s the test: Unless the wellmeaning secretary and the rest of our government officials (including big business owners) will report to their respective offices as regularly as they require their employees; would go to movie houses with their families; ride mass transports daily; go to the markets, malls and their favorite hubs as they used to do; attend big gatherings, concerts or sports events; and allow their children to go face-to-face classes five days a week, there is no ground for them to recommend/implement the easing of the current quarantine measures (GCQ) or the transition to a more relaxed quarantine form called MGCQ (as defined by them).
Should they fall short of the test and fail to show us the evidence, sincerity and reality of their “bright ideas,” their words don’t hold water. Thus, the question: have we, the people, any reason to believe them and do/live as they would tell us under their scheme or their “MGCQ”? Reality bites, but shall we have to bite the dust (their dust) for them?