Omicron control: Panic or logic?
ON November 30, President Emmerson Mnangagwa conducted a televised national address concerning the Omicron variant of coronavirus. This address consisted of regulations, plans and rules encapsulated in Statutory Instrument 267 of 2021 Public Health (COVID-19 Prevention, Containment and Treatment) (National Lockdown) (No 2) (Amendment) Order, 2021 (No 37).
The address has since been reviewed by public health professionals, politicians and the community as a sublime mixture of both panic and logic.
This has been so because, while the objective is infection prevention and control (IPC) as an emergency preparedness strategy, various aspects of the statutory instrument are inconsistent with the evolution of public health policy and legislation concerning COVID-19 in Zimbabwe; and they overlook a myriad of socio-economic implications.
The abundance of mutations on Omicron’s spike protein suggests that the variant might render our current vaccines less effective.
On the other hand, it’s far from clear how Omicron mutations will unite to change its immuneevasion capabilities.
This means that we cannot solely rely on vaccines in the face of the Omicron variant.
South Africa should be praised for detecting and promptly reporting the new variant, but its vigilance and transparency has come at a cost.
The key concerns are on whether the Omicron spreads faster than the other variants, whether it causes greater harm, and whether it is vaccine-resistant.
In terms of section 8(1) of the Public Health (COVID-19 Prevention, Containment and Treatment) Regulations, 2020 (published in Statutory Instrument 77 of 2020), VicePresident Constantino Chiwenga who doubles as Health and Child Care minister made orders that have left many wondering whether or not he was scientifically informed by public health standards or procedure for emergency prevention and management.
Experts say a travel ban and over-relying on quarantine is futile at best and counterproductive at worst.
It was ordered that at every port of entry all returning residents and visitors have to undergo PCR testing (notwithstanding that they present a PCR negative test from elsewhere), and those found to be negative will be quarantined at their own cost for 10 days, while those who are found positive will be isolated in accordance with the provisions of the principal order.
This provision lacks consideration for many factors that are critical to the lives of Zimbabweans.
The majority of the people who work in neighbouring countries have at most three weeks leave days accumulated throughout the year.
Some of them have already booked flights and others have already prepared for their journey.
While 14 days quarantine might be reasonable for those who test positive, 10 days are harsh for those who have tested negative after conducting PCR tests.
How ethically and scientifically relevant is such a move?
Those measures could have been apt during the first phases of the COVID-19, where the world was still in panic and without adequate health facilities for testing, controlling and vaccinating.
Admission to restaurants, licensed premises and night clubs are restricted to customers and patrons who have proof of full vaccination.
This is a great move towards the containment of the variant and it demonstrates effective emergency preparedness and response.
The logic behind is not only limited to encouraging people to get vaccinated but also to minimise close contact and large gatherings.
The statutory instrument states that bottlestores may only operate during business hours, subject to the prohibition against drinking on the premises of the bottlestore and to strict adherence to all measures stipulated in the statutory instrument with respect to the wearing of face masks, temperature checks, sanitising of hands and social distancing.
While this is logical, it is imperative to understand that these regulations are flexible. Such flexibility should also be visible in the context of people coming back to Zimbabwe.
There is no clear reason for the 10-day quarantine for people who have tested negative prior to crossing the border or arriving on airports.
The quarantine agenda is effective when a pandemic has just started. By this time, almost everyone is aware of COVID-19 and how to control its spread.
Rigid regulations are not ideal and there should have been alternative forms of self isolation.
Even at a conservative estimate, the cost of tests and quarantine for 10 days is high for people returning for holidays.
These instruments should be enacted with due consideration to a plethora of factors.
We should understand the level of knowledge that people have in preventing the spread of COVID-19 despite the variant.
We should also look at the time factor, there is a significant number of Zimbabweans who return home for the Christmas holidays.
A self-funded 10-day quarantine is too long and costly; and it casts a blind eye on various important issues.
Public health legislation should prioritise attainment of quality health but should not overlook socioeconomic issues because they also contribute to the wellbeing of the country as a whole.
We are past the phase where panic informed our COVID-19 policy responses.
Despite its different variants, COVID-19 has become part of us and what matters most is the vaccination process, masking up, sanitising and not long quarantine periods.
As we wait for the review scheduled for the 14th day after the introduction of the statutory instrument, there is need for an assessment of matters of costs, 10-day quarantine for people who have tested negative and provision of alternative forms of self isolation.