Almost at the end of the fourth week of curfew, there are some observations that can be made. The global pandemic has prompted varied responses in varied governments across the world. One of these is clearly manifested across the whole spectrum: the damaging belief in personal (cultural, ethnic or socio-economic) exceptionalism.
Faced with a human catastrophe affecting all human beings with a respiratory and immune system, none of whom have herd immunity, many people’s default response was to believe and hope - against all the odds and accumulating evidence of statistics and data - that they, personally, their race and society and nation, had some kind of innate inbuilt or circumstantial protection.
If you want to remind me that this is an unprecedented event, for which no country was prepared, I do take your point. My concern is that there seems to be a sense of wishful thinking operating where people assume that they themselves would be immune as a race or a nation or a culture, just because their country’s numbers of infected persons were initially low, and so they did not enact early intervention or vigilant precautions.
Mass testing for a person to person transmitted contagious disease is far more indicative of the state of the spread than restricted testing. Yet despite the evidence that this worked well, many countries did not practise this. Given the opportunity to observe the tragic rise of numbers in South East Asia and Europe, and the reasons for them, many still did not adequately prepare. Knowledge sharing between countries was essential. But different governments had different views of what they should share, and what they could implement, in their own countries.
Human beings like stability, and no one on earth wanted to believe that the crisis would be extended, and that restrictions of mobility and access to provisions would become normalized. Clearly, many people were not prepared physically or emotionally for total shutdown, and did not have time or financial resources to stock their cupboards with necessary groceries, medicines etc. so governing authorities are balancing these considerations against each other, based on the numbers each country faces on an ongoing basis.
The problem is, the numbers on which these decisions to impose or lift restrictions are decided may be low because of lack of testing rather than actual lack of infection. So this gradual extension of restrictions based on the developing situation is hard to implement effectively.
It’s been like watching a terrible, apocalyptic game of musical chairs. The countries that have managed it best so far have been the ones who imposed severe restrictions rapidly, before the number of deaths in their communities started escalating. Democratic governments have been slower to lock their citizens down, and have appealed to their sense of civic responsibility. This commendable respect for citizens’ individual rights has unfortunately led to countries with a great deal of economic resources leaving it very late to intervene, and so failing to limit the spread of the illness throughout their communities.
It’s harshly ironic that the very aspects of human life which make our lives enjoyable and meaningful - community events, people socializing, eating together, worshipping and celebrating, doing activities as groups - have been the very activities which spread this contagion most virulently.
We have all been required to make sudden major changes in our thinking and conduct: to face the reality of residing and working exclusively in our homes, without the relief or outlet of outings or adventures of any physical kind. Any faults or threats in our relationships with those we live with have been inevitably highlighted, by the enforced stay at home orders.
We have seen queuing, frustration and fear of actual hunger as stores logistically struggled to move from a small online payment and distribution process to total online purchasing in a few days. Competitive eyeing by people of each other’s ‘quarantine cooking’ has been noted, with self-styled ‘concerned citizens’ pointing out the insensitivity of people posting up their own culinary achievements in the face of the hunger of their fellow citizens.
Until limits on how much people could buy at a time were brought in, there was vocal dissatisfaction expressed on social media towards ‘the people that went and hoarded at the beginning [and] are nicely relaxing at home sharing pics of their food on Facebook, while the considerate few that actually thought of others and didn't hoard away are starving now.’
The initially often repeated phrase ‘we are all in this together’ was quickly shown to operate differentially, according to the amount of square footage each person lived in, and their level of preparedness. Blaming and criticism was natural, but it was not indulged in for long.
On the national level, preparedness was also the differentiating factor. Faced with the urgent resourcing of medical staff with respiratory equipment and protective gear, the distribution and allocation of essential goods in wealthy countries was shown to be not as effectively managed as in countries which are less resourced, and therefore less arrogant. Community funding of supply chains and community awareness of the need for social distancing and better hygiene became crucial.
Sri Lanka’s excellent response as a citizenry showed little delusional delay and time-wasting self pity. The recent experiences of war, natural disaster and terrorism have created a practical and resilient people with the essential capacity to thrive in conditions of austerity: the ability to be frugal, the skills to conserve their personal resources, and to repurpose their possessions.
From the very start of this crisis, community organizers started raising funds and collecting commodities to protect the most vulnerable. The ability to think as ‘we’ and not just ‘me’ is the true test of a people in an event like this. It is a concept of survival on a collective level. Psychologists and counsellors have shared their expertise freely, to assist the public to manage our natural feelings of anxiety and panic, and to progress from individualistic survival thinking to a more generous approach which will ensure our success.
The miracle of the loaves and fishes comes to mind, at this juncture. The true miracle of that event, where want was turned into plenty, may be that everyone shared what they had, and the result was that everyone had enough. What we are witnessing is that it is not how much a person or a country has, but how effectively they manage and distribute their resources.
