Prime minister Muhyiddin Yassin has been worried about the economy for a long time. In a televised Labour Day broadcast, he stressed that the economy suffers a loss of RM2.4 billion per day from the lockdown. The seven-week stay-at-home order has cost the country at least RM63 billion.
If we do not lift the lockdown now, we will stand to lose another RM35 billion. In other words, a lockdown that lasts from March to June will bring almost RM100 billion loss to our country.
This economic logic was also shared with the finance minister. We know that Bank Negara revised its GDP forecast to between minus two percent and 0.5 percent for 2020. The finance minister said in a TV3 interview that the GDP could decline even further from that.
That is why the government decided to ease the lockdown almost entirely. Except for some sectors, almost all businesses are allowed to operate fully, from 4 May.
By prioritising the economy over our health, the government has made a decision that is sudden, disorderly, and reckless.
Too sudden: Not out of the woods yet
First, it is not clear why the government has suddenly decided to allow almost all sectors to go into full operation immediately. This is contrary to the gradualism and progressivism that is advised by most governments and health experts. For the longest time, everyone has lamented the absence of a clear exit plan where people could foresee a safe and assured return to work life.
Instead of an exit plan, the government had once again retreated to the “government knows best” mentality. When questioned on the haste to lift the lockdown, we were just told the government had done the “necessary study” and taken decisions compliant to the World Health Organisation (WHO). No one knows what the necessary study was and what those WHO conditions were.
We need to know the basis of a government decision because more and more expert studies were found not to concur with reality. The virus is novel and errors in predictions and findings have humbled many experts. Mathematical models like the ones from the University of Washington’s Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation did not predict what eventually happened in Italy, Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands. There was no rise-peak-fall pattern as predicted. None of the countries so far have seen a rapid decline that mirrors their rapid increase.
To talk about lifting restrictions when we have seen a small but inconsistent reduction in numbers is dangerous.
It is true that, unlike other countries, our “effective R” number has fallen below one, reducing the number of secondary cases per infectious case. Harvard Professor Marc Lipsitch said that many predictions rely on the assumption that the effective R remaining the same as long as social distancing remains. This has not been proven yet.
We are not sure which model the government is relying on, but if we relax at a time where the “effective R” is increasing towards one again, then we may see another spike in cases.
Too disorderly: Chaotic Monday
Second, it is also not clear why the government found it fitting to ease restrictions at such a disorderly fashion. Two days after the prime minister’s announcement, at least six states have signalled their rejection of lockdown lift.
East Malaysia has rejected the easing in full and will maintain status quo, whereas Penang and Kedah have deferred the reopening, with Selangor and Negeri Sembilan only adopting partial relaxation. The politically-charged decision to not coordinate country-wide Covid-19 efforts with opposition states at the beginning has started to catch up with the government.
As always, the people are the victims of this political charade.
Since the announcement, most businesses started urging their employees to go to work on Monday, despite the confusion, anxiety and refusal of the workers. Most companies also do not have sufficient resources, time, and guidance to prepare for this announcement.
What will happen, eventually, is that most companies will operate in full first and think about precautions later. That is a risk worth taking, since enforcement for non-compliance will not be full and complete.
And all it takes is for “one cryptic case” to form new clusters, and then the numbers will spike again. This is the problem with a sudden and disorderly discharge.
For every person, there is also no assurance. Since the start of the pandemic, experts around the world have expounded on the need for digital contact tracing to curb the virus. The recommendation is to use Bluetooth functionalities on a smartphone App to detect people who have the virus, symptoms or close contacts with an infectious case. This is one of the most crucial portions of the “technology enablers” to track and monitor better.
The government has launched MySejatera and MyTrace on the same Labour Day that Muhyiddin announced the lift. Not only is it unclear to many what the functions of these Apps are, nor the difference with the previous unsuccessful Gerak Malaysia App, it is also shocking that there is no intention to make digital contact tracing work.
If there is no widespread adoption and outstanding user experience comparable to Apple or Google, then it is bound to fail. Every technology company will tell you that the lack of product adoption spells the demise of an App, and this is especially so for a crucial App like contact tracing, where the success hinges on a near-total adoption.
By disregarding product adoption, user experience, and privacy concerns, the government cannot ensure an orderly post-lockdown life. Launching an App for the sake of it is hardly assuring.
Too reckless: Economy depends on good health
Third, prioritising the economy above our health is reckless.
Choosing between our health and the economy is a false dichotomy – they are both working in the same direction. Lifting the lockdown may raise the economic output when people are forced to go back to work, but they are unlikely to last if the virus is still prevalent or gets worse.
If the sudden, disorderly and reckless way of reopening the economy leads to a new wave of infectious cases, then we would necessitate another round of lockdown. This cycle of reopenings and lockdowns would lead to a far worse consequence to our economy.
A study by the University of California, Berkeley, concurred. They found that the least costly option is not quick reopening but strong suppression of the virus – it saves lives, reduces medical cost, and lowers the economic cost of social distancing.
If we are sincere in saving the economy, then we must make sure the disease population is small enough to control and that there is a credible system of testing, tracing, and quarantining.
We are not losing money because of the lockdown; we are investing in a future that is safer for ourselves. Framing the decision to save ourselves as a “loss” is reckless at best.
If the 1918 influenza outbreak is of any guidance, we know that reopening the economy prematurely could bring drastic consequences. Nancy Bristow, the author of The Lost Worlds of the 1918 Influenza Epidemic, found that reopening San Francisco too early resulted in mass flouting of rules, overwhelming carelessness and worse infection and death rates than before.
We have been careful so far. I hope this isn’t a reckless decision we come to regret.
JAMES CHAI is a legal consultant and researcher working for Invoke, among others. You may reach him at jameschai.mpuk@gmail.com. - Mkini
The want to hv a 2nd wave and thereon to lockdown further 2 months will put the PN in power to swindle more . When all $ are save and sound in their swiss bank then we will hv death toll and hunger to deal with. Only then parlimen will sit to kick non confident vote....i see the pattern.
ReplyDelete