Jagdeo talking nonsense!

May 23, 2021 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – Even if the evidence stared Bharrat Jagdeo in the face, he would not recognise it. Politicians often bind themselves to positions which blind them from accepting anything that is contrary to the positions they take.
The empirical evidence exist that lockdowns, which really refers to social restrictions such as stay-at-home orders, curfews, closure of non-essential businesses and restricting access of external persons to places like prisons and care homes, work. And this evidence also exists locally.
During the first five months of the pandemic, the APNU+AFC imposed a ban on the operations of non-essential businesses and entertainment spots. The curfew hours were also longer than at present; from 6:00 hrs. to 18:00 hrs. The numbers tell their own tales of the effectiveness of these measures even when account is made for the fact that the pandemic was in its early stages, low levels of testing and non-existent enforcement of social restrictions.
From March to August 2020, Guyana recorded a mere 413 positive cases and only 20 deaths. By comparison when the economy began reopening, the number of cases between August and December 2020 rose more than 10-fold to 5,919 and deaths to more than seven times to 144. In the period January to May 2021, the total number of cases has risen to 9,571 with 43 more deaths than the previous five-month period. And we still have another week to complete the month of May, during which we can expect probably another 1,000 cases and 10 more deaths.
So is Jagdeo really interested in the empirical evidence about curfews? Or is he more concerned with justifying his government’s support for giving primacy to the economy over the protection of lives?
Internationally, there is evidence that lockdowns work. The International Monetary Fund found that lockdowns are powerful instruments to reduce infections. Research by the International Monetary Fund says that “despite imposing short-term economic costs, lockdowns may lead to a faster economic recovery by containing the virus and reducing voluntary social distancing.” It concludes that “by bringing infections under control, lockdowns may thus pave the way to a faster economic recovery as people feel more comfortable about resuming normal activities.” This analysis debunks the narrative which views lockdowns as a trade-off between saving lives and keeping the economy going.
Even when one accounts for vaccination, the evidence is there that lockdowns are impactful COVID-19 mitigating measures. Comparing the experience of the United Kingdom and the United States may help make a point. The UK prior to the vaccination rollout had one of the world’s highest per capita death rates. It still has a higher per capita death rate than the USA. But its deaths have fallen dramatically since vaccination. When compared on a per capita basis with the US, the UK has done astonishingly well since it began vaccinations. On Friday for example, the UK recorded a mere nine deaths as against 657 in the United States. In terms of cases, the UK had 10 times less new cases than the United States. The difference between the two countries, while accounting for vaccinations, relates to lockdowns. The UK has had more stringent social restrictions since the winter than the United States and this is showing in the total number of new infections and deaths.
Curfews also do work since they are an aspect of social distancing. They limit activities and thus the number of contacts between people. But having a curfew is not the only social restriction which can be implemented to stem infections and consequently deaths.
Research in Europe found that closing certain businesses was effective as was limiting human gatherings but only when strictly imposed. It also found that curfews were effective in stemming the increase of the virus’ reproduction number.
Lockdowns do work. However, a lockdown does not have to mean a total shutdown. Trinidad and Tobago has imposed a state of emergency since it recognises that it is not going to be feasible to have a total shutdown. Barbados recently had imposed measures after there was a spike in cases. But in Guyana despite the country now experiencing its highest growth of deaths and infections, there has been slackening of social restrictions, including the opening of casinos and betting shops.
The reason is not a lack of empirical evidence; it is ideological. The PPP/C’s government is concerned more with the economy. And this is why there is nonsensical proposition, offered by the Vice President, about the absence of empirical evidence of lockdowns.
There should never even be a need for such evidence. Scientifically, lockdowns are part of social distancing mechanisms. The rationale is that the spread of the virus can be reduced by reducing contact between people – physical distancing, restricted activities, curfews and workplace measures such as work-from-home and rotation.
But don’t tell that to Jagdeo. He is so bent on keeping the economy turning that he is impervious to such reasoning.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

---

---