Let science lead
Veering from evidence-based decision-making costing state its credibility
Unless you are US President Donald Trump or President of Brazil Jair Bolsonaro, you would appreciate the potency of science in the fight against COVID-19 or any other virus for that matter, especially if it is the pandemic that it is. Trump and Bolsonaro are impervious to science and keep on making idiotic decisions and pronouncements based on nothing.
To pursue his disdain for Barack Obama, Trump pulled the US out of the Iran nuclear deal and the 2016 Paris climate pact the entire world had agreed upon. This despite the fact that scientific evidence suggested that they were the correct measures to take. The world based its decisions on solid scientific research done by many scientists from all over the globe.
Trump continues to accuse China of accidentally creating COVID-19 in their virology laboratory in Wuhan, despite the assertion by scientists that this Coronavirus was not man-made, but naturally produced.
Not having gone into any laboratory himself to conduct research and not having any scientific training whatsoever, he differs openly with medical scientists on a lot of issues, including lockdowns and the wearing of masks to prevent the spread of the virus in his country.
As a result of his refusal to be guided by science in his approach to COVID-19, the US fight against this virus is shambolic, and Americans are dying in large numbers. His most senior health adviser, Dr Anthony Fauci, has his hands full trying to assist a science ignoramus.
Straying from science
On this score, he and Bolsonaro are in the same Whatsapp group. The latter dismisses COVID-19 as a little influenza, demands the full opening of the Brazilian economy and refuses to wear a mask in public. He insists on the opening of beauty salons, restaurants and gyms as a way of keeping the Brazilian economy on the move.
Unlike these two men, the initial South African approach to the battle against COVID-19 was understood to be evidence-based and won widespread support within the population and the World Health Organisation. The media, business, sporting bodies, the faith communities of every stripe, organised labour and ordinary citizens of South Africa supported the measures put in place by the government.
Medical scientists, epidemiologists, actuaries and experts were roped in to explain the nature of this pandemic to the nation and the motivation for the tough measures that needed to be taken to combat its spread. So, when everything was shut down, the population was fully behind the government. Despite the pain and suffering that came with the lockdown, the whole population scrummed together with the government against the scourge.
The understanding of everyone in the country was that it was not a political, religious or ideological enterprise of any type. It was the truth as far as scientists and doctors understood it.
However, like the English scrum during the World Rugby Cup final against the Springboks in Japan late last year, our unity began to crumble once the actions of the government started emitting aromas of other agendas. Although some prohibitions were dodgy from the beginning, their debatable nature became pronounced with the climb from stage 5 to stage 4 of the lockdown.
In particular, the continued prohibition of the purchase of alcohol and tobacco has weakened the government’s case. Although it is a scientifically proven fact that smoking is injurious to health, especially the lungs, the lockdown was not meant to fight smoking, but the virus.
In a similar vein, the lockdown was not designed to fight sugary drinks and foods that tend to increase obesity and therefore the incidences of non-communicable diseases such as diabetes, hypertension and kidney failure. These are co-morbid conditions that render the sufferer vulnerable to COVID-19. So, why tobacco but not sugary foods?
Hidden agendas
Once the suspicion started taking root that the lockdown is being used as a cover to launch a crusade against smoking, the credibility of the government’s actions suffered. And this prohibition was made by politicians, not scientists. Of course, all of us know that smoking is a health hazard. By all means, the government and many other people who are so inclined should campaign against it. But to use the declaration of a state of disaster as a cover to advance the struggle against smoking is not helpful. It begins to feel more like a “Trumpian” way of thinking than a rational decision-making method.
It did not help that after the decision was made, political groupings and other anti-smoking bodies jumped onto the bandwagon to cheer the government on. The government started losing its almost total support from the population when it appeared there were other agendas and prejudices being pursued through the lockdown.
Trust on matters like this COVID-19 is much greater for doctors and scientists than political parties or politicians. Even the president of the country would have much greater credibility on this matter if he is seen to have the backing of science, not just likes and dislikes of politicians and different interest groups.
Whilst closure of shebeens and taverns is fully understood and explainable in the sense that people who are intoxicated would not be amenable to the notions of social distancing, frequent washing of hands or sanitising. However, it is not clear why individuals cannot buy alcohol and drink in their own homes. Once more, these decisions have a subtle smell of prejudice and moral posturing.
Prejudiced decisions
The point is that once decisions are not based on evidence, but on prejudice, morality, religious beliefs or the preferences of interest groups, they become more contestable. It follows, therefore, that the more the government decisions related to the fight against COVID-19 are removed from science and evidence to prejudice or whims, the more the government will lose the support of the population.
It is puzzling that food take-aways are not allowed, but the elderly, who are more vulnerable to the Coronavirus, are subjected to long queues at pay-points where social distancing is non-existent. Where is the logic here? Why prohibit self-employed individuals or other categories such as gardeners from working and then subject them to gatherings for the delivery of food parcels? Surely they are more likely to spread the virus at such gatherings than when working alone in a garden.
At the beginning of the lockdown, when it appeared that the government’s decisions relating to the fight against COVID-19 were based on science, a lot of people hoped it might be the beginning of a new era in South Africa where government decisions would be evidence-based.
We are in the soup in which we are today because decision-making in the state was based on familial, social and political connectivity rather than on evidence or facts.
People were appointed municipal managers not based on their proven competence or qualifications, but on who they are connected to socially and politically. The result is the shambles that are our municipalities, with the vast majority of them dysfunctional and receiving disclaimers or qualified audits from the auditor-general, year in and year out. Nobody seems to care.
The boards of state-owned entities (SOES), such as Eskom and SAA, as well as their management teams, are similarly appointed not on the basis of evidence of their competence, but their connections. It is simply not true that South Africa has no sons and daughters who can run our municipalities and SOES properly. Until such time that we take decisions on the basis of facts, we would keep on stumbling in our public life.
• Mangena is a former president of the Azanian People’s Organisation and former minister of science and technology