I've had a response from a friend, who wants to remain anonomous, to my submissions to the RSA government about the mass international hysteria surrounding the so-called covid-19.
I publish it
verbatim except of course with his real name. I shall call him Mr. X:
Dear
Neels,
Your
submission to the government regarding the COVID19 lockdown has given me some
thought.
My
response is not intended to be a thesis on the lockdown. I simply share my perspective. It is perhaps
necessary to formulate the core issue (as I understand your submission) at the
outset: is the lockdown not more damaging to the South African economy than the
Corona virus would be? Put differently, would the damage caused by the lockdown
to the South African economy, and families’ ability to earn a living, not
ultimately outweigh the damage caused by deaths due to the virus?
When
we spoke, I told you that I did not entirely agree with your approach. You
argue that the mortality rate of the virus is statistically so low that
lockdown measures here and around the world borders on hysteria, and that it is
preferable to open up the economy.
I
don’t take issue with the statistics. I have also not checked your
calculations. Your point of departure is
simply that the COVID19 virus is fatal to a very small percentage of those that
become infected. One’s natural reaction
in response to the relatively low mortality rate is to ask whether it is
necessary to paralyze the entire South African economy. Is it necessary to curb our freedom so
drastically? Is it not more important to
allow citizens the freedom to generate an income and to keep the economy alive?
My
view is that the general public probably does not have all the necessary
information. The general consensus may
consequently be that most may agree with you: save the economy at all
cost! Let the Corona virus run its
course! A herd-immunity might develop. At least the economy will survive and with it
the average wage earner’s ability to provide for his or her family. This is the approach adopted by Sweden
(see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCOSlfbOfm4).
My
own perspective is that the lockdown in South Africa is necessary. I believe it should be maintained,
notwithstanding the damage to the economy.
I am very conscious of my privileged station in society and the fact
that I am financially better placed to weather the storm than a domestic worker,
living in a township such as Zandspruit, on the outskirts of Johannesburg. I would like to believe that this does not
influence my view.
My
perspective is in part however influenced by what I learnt in a course on
corporate strategy during 2005 at the business school of the University of
Pretoria. The name of our lecturer
unfortunately escapes me. He had the
ability to analyse complex issues and to develop strategies to the relevant
scenarios in clear and simple terms. Although
I have forgotten his name, I remember one of the underlying techniques he
taught us, and which I share with you.
I
do not intend embarking on an exhaustive discussion of the application of the
technique. The basic concept is easy to
grasp. A business owner should bear in
mind certain macro-economic factors when considering whether to open a new
business or branch in a new territory, or whether to launch a new product or
service. Micro-economic principles and
financial concepts should also be considered.
The
ability to see “the big picture” is the starting point, however. We were taught that business leaders should
always be aware of, and consider, four themes in formulating their
decisions. We were also advised to
consider these four themes when reading a newspaper. The technique does not promise a complete
solution. The technique however aides in
seeing the bigger picture. The four themes are:
1. Energy
(e.g. oil, electricity, nuclear power);
2. Democracy;
3. Poverty;
4. Pandemic
(e.g. AIDS, or recently COVID19).
To
provide a simplistic illustration: if I contemplate opening a new business in Syria
I will quickly conclude not to. There is
an absence of reliable energy with which to power my business. There is also an absence of democracy. The
local community will probably be unable to afford my goods or services. The
infrastructure which has been destroyed by prolonged war may have resulted in
the outbreak of disease and famine. The example may be absurd, but it
illustrates the point. I will reach a
different conclusion if I consider opening a new business, or branch of my
business for example in New Zealand. It starts getting a bit more interesting when
you consider countries that are not on the opposite ends of the scale.
If
you apply the same technique (I am not dealing with the timing of a
lockdown, and only address whether a lockdown is necessary and
desirable) in considering the current COVID19 lockdown, the argument for
maintaining the lockdown is overwhelming:
Sweden
(see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden)
is in a unique position. Compared to
South Africa, Sweden has a relatively low population of 10.3 million
people. South Africa’s population stands
at roughly 58 million. Sweden is ranked
sixteenth-richest country in the world in terms of GDP (gross domestic product)
per capita. It is the fourth-most
competitive economy in the world. A
third of its workforce completed tertiary education.
Of
importance in the current discussion however is Sweden’s population
pyramid. It reflects that Sweden’s population
is evenly spread between the genders. The
population tapers off from the age of 75 and higher (see: https://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden#/media/File:Swedenpop.svg).
The population is not skewed in favour of a particular age group. If you compare Sweden’s position on these
aspects with those of the other countries I mention above, you will quickly see
where the differences lie.
These
differences are important considerations on not only the decision to implement
a lockdown, but also its effectiveness. The
difference in Italy’s population pyramid, compared to Sweden is striking
(see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy#/media/File:Italypop.svg):
it shows a “fat middle” i.e. the majority of its population lies between
the ages of 45 and 60 years of age. It has
emerged that infection with the Corona virus is more dangerous for older
people. A country where the general
population tends to be older would consequently be more at risk than a nation
with a younger population.
A
consideration of South Africa’s statistics quickly reveals the marked
differences with a country such as Sweden.
If you consider South Africa’s population pyramid (see: https://www.populationpyramid.net/southern-africa/2020/
) you will see that South Africa has a very young population, compared to
Sweden.
One
need not look far for an explanation: “According to the 2015 UNAIDS Report,
South Africa has an estimated seven million people living with HIV –
more than any other country in the world. In 2018, HIV prevalence—the
percentage of people living with HIV—among adults (15–49 years) was 20.4% and
in the same year 71000 people died from an AIDS-related illness.”
(see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa
). Moreover, “…South Africa is still
burdened by a relatively high rate of poverty and unemployment, and is also
ranked in the top ten countries in the world for income inequality, measured
by the Gini coefficient. Unlike
most of the world's poor countries, South Africa does not have a thriving informal economy. Only
15% of South African jobs are in the informal sector,
compared with around half in Brazil and India and
nearly three-quarters in Indonesia.”
(see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa).
Keeping
the four themes I refer to above in mind the following picture emerges. South
Africa currently struggles with an unreliable supply of electricity. Consider the impact not only on industry, but
also the healthcare system.
South
Africa’s democracy is vibrant, and jealously guarded by an independent press
and justice system. This makes it
possible for you to criticise the government, without fear of being dragged into
the town square by a gestapo. The free
exchange of ideas and debate no doubt strengthens a society.
Our
Achilles heel is poverty. South Africa is faced with a large population, the
majority of which is young, not formally educated, many suffering from ill
health, and they are poor.
The
latter factor is perhaps as prominent as pandemic factor, if not more. Aside from AIDS widespread tuberculosis and
diabetes have also been flagged as areas of concern amongst our poor. Income inequality has been a major concern
for some time.
A
cumulative consideration of these four factors, in considering whether a
lockdown is necessary, and should be maintained, must lead you to be in favour
of a lockdown, despite the damage to the economy. Can you imagine the panic that would ensue if
the virus spreads uncontrolled through the nation? When the young, poor and hungry start seeing
bodies piling up around them, as is happening in Ecuador? As I said at the
start, what you saw in Lebanon will seem like a picnic. Do you remember the
recent xenophobic attacks om foreign businesses in Johannesburg? Can you
imagine desperate mobs overwhelming hospitals, clinics, and the suburbs where
the middle-class and well-heeled members of society reside?
The
point is that a country such as Sweden probably has the wherewithal to survive
the pandemic without a lockdown, and without the possible anarchy that will
follow when the Corona virus spreads. We
don’t.
I
am not surprised that the government has deployed our entire defence force of
73000 to help maintain law and order.
This step speaks volumes. No
wonder our State President seemed so anxious and grave (dare I say afraid?)
when he announced the lockdown on 23 March.
I imagine that knowledgeable people presented him and his cabinet with
scenarios involving a lockdown approach, and one without it. I imagine they would have used a similar
method or methods to the one I outlined above, in sketching scenarios with and
without a lockdown.
This
is my take on our situation. I believe the
lockdown is necessary and must be maintained.
I don’t deny that the government is making mistakes and that some of
their decisions are open to criticism.
They are confronted with a novel situation and feeling their way through
this pandemic, guided by results in other countries, but limited by a shortage
of resources.
Time
will tell whether the lockdown will be successful. I hope, for all our sakes, that it will be
and that we will prevail.
In
the meantime, I agree with you about where I find solace.
Stay safe,
Mr. X
There you have it - I read it, considered his submissions. I still stand by my own conclusions: it is an unwarranted international mass hysteria.
