Two Questions for a more effective COVID-19 policy

 

Gasping for oxygen, scrambling to get a bed in the hospital, fighting for pyres in the cremation ground, fear overpowering the minds leading to hesitancy to step out of the house and facing the odds with the surging cases of COVID-19, this defines the lives of an ordinary citizen of India, for whom, this COVID wave has opened the floodgates of misery and helplessness. “Why the god has chosen my mother?” asked one, “Why don't even the doctors helping us?” asked the other. In between these questions, the moot point is, what could have been done differently for a continued retreat of the virus?

In my previous article, I delve into the problem that India is facing in the present context and what has led to this problem. However, the need is felt to write this article for the sole purpose of what ought to be done to deal with the current situation. The article is based on the two conflicting ideas- first, an argument between lockdown v/s no lockdown, or to put it differently in the words of some commentators, life v/s livelihood situation, and second is the argument of giving controlling powers to the state or the Union.

The first argument hinges on the principle of the need to enforce strict lockdown or not. While the knowledge of hindsight and global examples tell that lockdown has a positive impact in controlling the surge of the virus, equally known is its effect on the economy. The whole argument stumbles on this argument that how could India be able to deal with the repercussions of the economic slowdown in the long-term should it enforce a second nationwide lockdown. A recent report by Barclays estimates the cumulative shutdown costs to be around $120 billion or nearly 4% of India’s GDP. Now, after the lockdown has been extended, it has revised the costs to a whopping $234.4 billion that is around 8.1% of the GDP. While economic data show that economic fallout is astronomical, health data points out the daily number of increased mortality due to the virus, a perfect amalgam for a catch-22 situation. The option, as has been suggested by some commentators, is to have localized lockdowns and a vigil approach for contract tracing, to deal with economic fallout while holding the bull (COVID-19) by its horns through a strict approach. However, the mood and public perception points otherwise. At this juncture, the criticality of the situation is such that nationwide lockdown and not localized ones, seems to be the only measure available at hand which exert pressure on the government to either take a concrete decision for people’s welfare or face pushback. This needs much deliberation on the part of policymakers and the government, to choose one way while entangled between a rock and a hard place. 

The second argument hinges on the premise of a national response or a state response to this disaster. Let’s look outside our boundary on two examples which we consider as success stories- China and New Zealand. To start with China where we saw a centralized approach of the CPC at the helm trying to stop the surge of the virus. If we were to go with this approach i.e., central government being omnipotent and trying to do as it wants, two things stop us to adopt this model- first, a federal structure of Indian polity, second, health being a subject of the State list in normal circumstances (except under emergency). On the contrary, if we look at New Zealand, we would find more of a concerted and democratic approach to deal with the situation, more suitable for the Indian democratic system. However, comparing these two examples one thing should be kept in mind, neither India has deep pockets as China has nor India's population is as small and scattered as New Zealand's. Despite being a federal state, India adopted a centralized strategy to deal with the Pandemic, which resulted in ambiguity with state governments and later on mismanagement ensued. This time (second-wave of COVID-19) Central government tried to delegate as much responsibility as it can to the state governments, from looking after oxygen supply to healthcare facilities, with no financial resources to deal with the situation, which turned out to be an even bigger disaster resulting in black marketing of critical supplies and scarcity of hospital beds. The real answer lies in a middle path- centralized guidelines and policy with a localized execution. Being as diverse and big as India is, centralized policies of “one size fits all” has never reaped positive results. This national disaster needs a centralized syntax of policies that provide a scientific lens to every state government while giving them leeway to adopt viable policies more suited for their localized conditions and still being in the confines to work for a national goal. This also means to give fiscal resources to state government with central government helping the state government as a crisis manager of the last resort. Sadly, this is far from our sight at present.

The answer to these two questions are hard and lies in how we reflect upon our response to the disaster that has defined the trajectory of COVID-19 in India. Unless a scientific and a political solution would be found for the existing problems, India would continue to reel under the cost inflicted by the resurgence of COVID-19. It is high time that everyone should be on board from State governments to opposition leaders and from Policymakers to ordinary citizens, lest an irreparable disaster, both in the economic and health domain, is in the offing.