By Modesto P. Sa-onoy
Monday last week the world was astounded when news broke out that the World Health Organization had flipped from its position on lockdowns as a peremptory move to stem the tide of infections from the coronavirus. However, hardly had the news spread when spokespersons from the WHO clarified that the organization has not changed its mind but only a member of the governing body of the organization. That makes a difference but it shows a crack.
Even US President Donald Trump reacted to the initial report. He wrote on Twitter, “The World Health Organization just admitted that I was right. Lockdowns are killing countries all over the world. The cure cannot be worse than the problem itself. Open up your states, Democrat governors. Open up New York. A long battle, but they finally did the right thing!
“But the World Health Organization, did you see what happened? They just came out a little while ago, and they admitted that Donald Trump was right. The lockdowns are doing tremendous damage to these Democrat-run states, where they’re locked out, sealed up. Suicide rates, drug rates, alcoholism, deaths by so many different forms. You can’t do that.”
WHO, however, denied the reported backflip; the statement of one of its officials was taken out of context and that it never said Trump was right.
The news said that a WHO doctor has called for world leaders “to stop locking down their countries and economies as a primary control method”.
Following that call, another leading voice on the pandemic, Dr. Anthony Fauci was reported to “favor public health measures over a national lockdown.” In a US program 60 Minutes, he said the coronavirus pandemic would have to get really, really bad before he would favor a national lockdown.”
The report last Monday cited Dr. David Nabarro from the World Health Organization as the doctor who appealed to world leaders last Sunday, telling them to stop “using lockdowns as your primary control method” of the coronavirus. Dr. Nabarro works at the office of the Director-General of the WHO.
He also claimed that the only thing lockdowns achieved was poverty – with no mention of the potential lives saved. “Lockdowns just have one consequence that you must never ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer,” he said.
He could not have said it better. We see the consequences of the quarantine – business closing, millions thrown out of work, plans scuttled, government incomes collapse while expenses tripled, the marginalized had to be fed with food packs, corruption multiplied, fear grip citizens, depression rose to high levels – the resulting miserable lives cannot be measured.
“We in the World Health Organisation do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus,” Dr Nabarro told The Spectator. “The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganise, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted, but by and large, we’d rather not do it.”
But governments outdid themselves. In Bacolod, we have cases of people being “picked up” on mere suspicion that they are infected. The contact tracers in the city have come out notorious in this regard. They call people and tell them they are “positive” but cannot produce proof of the allegation. When asked they point to the City Health Office or the barangay official. When citizens refuse to go, the PNP is quick to the draw and also without verification or proof that the intended victim is positive, would force people to go under quarantine.
It seems the people in Bacolod are just as afraid of the city’s facilities as they are of the virus.
Dr. Nabarro’s main criticism of lockdowns involved the global impact, explaining how poorer economies had been indirectly affected. “Just look at what’s happened to the tourism industry in the Caribbean, for example, or in the Pacific because people aren’t taking their holidays,” he said.
“Look what’s happened to smallholder farmers all over the world … Look what’s happening to poverty levels. It seems that we may well have a doubling of world poverty by next year. We may well have at least a doubling of child malnutrition.”
Not next year. We have them already.
Continued tomorrow.
