Follow the science

Judge Norman Davis’s critique of SA’s lockdown regulations has its flaws (“Lockdown Rules Are Unconstitutional, Rules Judge”, DD Jun 3).

The regulations he cites may appear contradictory, but that is if you compare apples and oranges, as he does. The regulations cannot be dismissed as irrational when they are based on scientific health findings regarding the nature and spread of this virus. The judge does not dispute the scientific basis or its rationality. But he fails, for example, to acknowledge that funerals take place outdoors, and that they are onetime exposures where physical distancing and other protective measures can be maintained. They cannot be compared with events that take place in closed spaces for a prolonged time. The judge’s ruling should be appealed with witnesses who are scientific and health experts and can best inform us on the rational foundation for the regulations.

Judge Davis also ruled that the lockdown regulations may be unconstitutional. The constitution gives citizens certain rights but it also gives balances. For example with smoking, people have a right to smoke but we prohibit smoking in public to protect other people from the toxins. The judge, however, does raise a moral dilemma. Should our priority be to protect lives through lockdown regulations, or should it be to protect livelihoods by removing regulations that affect economic activity? The virus moves with the speed of a raging wildfire. If we do away with the regulations we may gain a few paychecks, but then the fire may catch up with us and destroy whatever is left of what we built. SA has been given the best tool to stay healthy and that is information. Citizens can minimise their exposure to the virus by following the scientific community’s recommendations.

— Wongaletu Vanda, via e-mail