"Decisions should be made in delicate balance of the equally critical objectives of safety and viability, with reliable numbers – not misplaced hope or crippling fear – as basis."
May 15 marked the end of a period for millions of Filipinos especially those in Metro Manila. It was the last day of the Enhanced Community Quarantine. The following day, Saturday, saw the start of the so-called modified ECQ where some businesses were allowed to reopen albeit in a limited capacity.
Make no mistake about it: After two months of ECQ, the number of new cases has not seemed to decline, hovering above 200, even as the number of recovered patients is now three times the number of deaths. Still, businesses and self-employed workers were bleeding, and the economy was headed for a disaster.
Something had to be done. Some easing was allowed not because the environment was any safer, but because an economic standstill threatened to close down small businesses, and plunge even more poor Filipinos into desolation.
Notwithstanding this crucial nuance, photos circulating over social media showed people flocking to just-opened malls, hardly observing social distancing even if many of them were wearing masks. This prompted the lament that Filipinos indeed lacked discipline, and spurred talk of a second wave of infections even if the first curve had not yet been flattened.
But who is to say whether there has been any improvement in the numbers at all? Last week, the University of the Philippines came out with a policy note that pointed out inaccuracies in the reporting system of the Department of Health. The analysts said that numbers from the DOH and the local government units are difficult to reconcile. They noticed changes in sex, age and location among the patients. Given these, can we even take comfort in the numbers enough to be confident to venture out?
Perhaps more than waiting for the announcement of quarantine easing, the public stays tuned to the daily announcements of the DOH with regard to the current level of COVID-19 infections. Some context would be helpful: By how much has mass testing improved since the start of the lockdown period? What is the percentage of people testing positive relative to the aggregate number of those tested? What are our targets with regard to testing, and how are we doing in terms of attaining them? How much help do we still need and in what areas?
Without this information, the reopening of businesses and easing of restrictions will only be seen as risky moves that sacrifice the health and safety of millions for economic gain.
This either-or mindset is not healthy when we ponder how basic survival is the main issue for many Filipinos who, unlike a privileged few, cannot continue earning while working from home.
Indeed before we or any member of our family think of stepping out of the house, we need to ask: Is the trip at all essential, or can it wait a day or two?
There is great need to balance our concerns for safety on one hand, and for economic sustainability on the other. We need mass testing so we can get grasp of how widespread the virus really is. We need solid information to serve as basis for future policies. Decisions should be made in delicate balance of the equally critical objectives of safety and viability, with reliable numbers – not misplaced hope or crippling fear – as basis.
We must be careful lest we lose our balance, and fall.