- Is the lockdown being ended too soon?
The lockdown is being eased at a time when the number of infections as well as deaths due to covid-19 is increasing, rather than decreasing. In other words, the government has been unable to ‘flatten the curve.’ It has also been increased without having developed the ability to carry out massive testing. Perhaps more significant, the government has issued SOPs for the easing of the lockdown, but has not mentioned which body is to ensure their implementation. As became apparent on the very first day of the lockdowns being eased, those SOPs are being honoured more in the breach than in the obedience. As the preceding lockdown was not the serious and harsh lockdown that other countries had imposed, it is not as if there has been any sudden transformation. Besides, the experience with the taravih congregations should have been enough to convince the government that the SOPs would be ignored. There is no point in setting SOPs which might be impressive and ‘politically correct’ unless there is some means of ensuring they can be enforced. The lockdown was eased, the government claims, because of the demands placed by small businessmen’s organisations. Then why have those organisations not been made responsible to ensure that the SOPs are observed?
There have been other countries which have eased their lockdowns earlier, because their governments feared, as does that of Pakistan, the economic consequences that a lockdown would bring. Prime Minister Imran Khan seems to have been in a hurry to learn from their example, but will he be as quick to learn from the consequences? The easing of lockdowns in China and Germany has already been succeeded by a re-emergence of the infection, with the result that there is already some thought of reimposing it.
In Pakistan, one of the great symbolic signs of the easing was the convening of Parliament. Unfortunately, it transpires that two MNAs have tested positive for the coronavirus, which has persuaded Science and Technology Minister Fawad Chaudhry to stay away. Such pusillanimity was not to be expected of a minister, but with the members concerned belong to the Treasury, is he really to blame? Or is this an example of the spirit in which the government wants all to take the easing, of everyone for himself?
