Mazie Nakhro
The reality of the Covid-19 Pandemic as being dangerous and deadly is undebatable. We have all seen the devastation it causes wherever it has spread.
But how we should respond to this killer virus is a totally different matter, which is what this article seeks to address here:
In certain places where the virus had spread, some nations responded well. For example, South Korea acted fast by conducting early mass testing in such a way that they could contain the virus spread without shutting down their economy. But many other countries have not done too well and therefore have had to suffer much.
Indeed, all of us have to face the danger of this same pandemic and walk on the same dangerous and unpredictable path. Yet we are all responding from two very different perspectives, thereby resulting in two different reactions and two different experiences from the same situation.
One category of people see total lockdown as the most appropriate response. They are so fear-stricken. These people, although well-intentioned, have advocated that the entire Nagaland, including all the Naga villages in the remote interior, should be under lockdown. Another group of people see it a bit differently. This writer, for instance, felt the need to share his take on multiple social media platforms two weeks ago, suggesting that the total lockdown should not cover interior Naga villages whose residents had not been in contact with anyone else within the last 21 days. These villages are self-contained and hence self-quarantined in a sense. Therefore, his reasoning was, why should these villagers be ordered to further confinement within their own sealed-off villages? Is it reasonable to assume that these uninfected villagers also face the danger of infection from among themselves? Since we know for a fact that they cannot infect each other, these people, he argued, should be allowed to resume their daily normal activities, including holding their church services and keeping their schools open. Why should these villagers be forced to suffer like the urban residents who live in vulnerable places? In other words, it could be wrong to make a generalized assumption based on what is going on in urban areas and then order a sweeping directive that doesn't necessarily fit the various rural situations.
Now coming to more vulnerable places like Dimapur, how should we respond to the danger of the pandemic? Should it be a total lockdown with a just wait-it-out approach? This is too simplistic and naive, to say the least. What if a second wave occurs? Should we still continue to extend the wait-period without taking any proactive action? Also, should we still operate with a generalized assumption and keep on issuing more sweeping orders for total shutdown? Obviously, Dimapur cannot have a single plan of attack. It requires a more complex and more sophisticated approach. Based on careful analysis of the entire city, we should identify if certain areas are more dangerous than other areas. Then, we should attack the invading disease with a divide-and-conquer game-plan. For example, if certain areas are confirmed as hotspots, they could be coded as Red Zones; those areas that are vulnerable and susceptible could be coded as Yellow Zones; and those areas that could be considered safe as Green Zones. First of all, this is to aim at strategically containing the spread of the virus. Secondly, this will enable us to wisely use our limited resources, human and financial, in a focused manner so as to effectively combat the problem.
For those who have stocked enough food supplies, total lockdown may not be much of a problem; for those in the line of digital economy, lockdown may have been a wonderful business opportunity; for those in the healthcare profession, they are less likely to think in terms of socio-economic ramifications. But as members of one big community with diverse needs, we must all strive to maintain a balance between health needs and socio-economic needs. That is, while imposing total or partial lockdown in certain areas, we must also encourage the functioning of our economic and social activities in areas where the danger is low.
As for the Green Zones, the government needs to gradually but safely and strategically reopen the functioning of our socio-economic activities that have come to a complete halt. Otherwise, the Naga public will suffer many unintended consequences such as unprecedented social upheaval and serious economic depression which could come in the following forms: those who have taken loans will be faced with accumulating debts; those who depend on businesses for survival may soon run into huge financial losses; many who are employed in the private sector will lose their jobs; the economic system will be hard to restart as disruption has adversely affected demand and supply chains; farmers who could not sell their agricultural products or sow seeds on time will not have enough to eat at the end of the year; prolonged lockdown will increase the chances of starvation; lockdown at home with nothing much to do may result in an unprecedented population explosion; poverty will result in more theft; sick people who have been forced to put on hold their regular medical care will develop more health complications; stranded students and employees in other places far away from home will continue to suffer untold deprivations; students in Naga villages who depend on attending schools will be further left behind; there will be sharp increase in stress, heart disease, and possibly even suicide.
So what should we, especially our political leadership, do? They should immediately come up with a proactive game-plan to address the current crisis without ignoring the inevitable socio-economic ramifications. One way to do this is to reopen the socio-economic systems and do so phase-wise in a safe and strategic manner based on unfolding situations on the ground.
For political leaders, Covid-19 could become a blessing in disguise as this crisis presents them a wonderful opportunity to show to the public what they are really made of. In times such as this, real leaders will not be locked inside hiding in fear. No, panic has no place in real leadership. As for strong leaders, they will be stepping forward and leading their people on the forefront. They may not have all the answers, but they will be humble enough to ask for expert advice. When their people are fear-stricken and their morale low, they will not be content with just keeping people on survival mode. Rather, they will work on reinventing their people for the possibility of having to face a "new normal."
As such, this is an opportune time for our political leaders to prepare us all to be a better people, to be better trained, to make better choices, and, yes, to think bigger so that we can all work to create a better tomorrow.
